Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by Furlow:
Tough season for you so far, man. Maybe you'll luck out and Jimmy will get hurt like you keep hoping for.

oh yeah..cool story lol

Originally posted by 5thSFG:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Jimmy Garoppolo on 3rd and 8+ tonight for #49ers: 6 for 7 for 90 yards, 4 1st downs and 118.8 rating. For the season, Garoppolo has converted on 45.2% of passes on 3rd and 8+, 2nd best to Mahomes (46.9%)

— Josh Dubow (@JoshDubowAP) November 14, 2022

Like I said originally, Jimmy saved Kyle's ass on Sunday night overcoming 11 2nd and longs in 10 possessions and 3rd downs.

Good job Jimmy!

And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

Not sure your point other than to point out the OP should have said Jimmy saved the teams ass, not Kyle's?

My point is that Jimmy did his job. Nothing more, nothing less. Kyle was not "saved." Kyle gave the offense some great looks, and they didn't execute. The Jimmy cultists are all over the place, blaming Aiyuk for a drop and a fumble for example, when Kyle's design got him wide open or got the passing lane wide open in the first place (and that fumble, Kyle's design pulled all the underneath defenders out, making that an easy throw and catch). This was discussed in my previous post.

It's asinine to claim Kyle was "saved." These were some great play designs, which worked symbiotically to generate a few big plays.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

Yup.

Agreed. But not last Sunday. What, "great designs?"

Just going by the highlights, because I'm not paying the NFL for All 22 until they start putting up games from the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. (A lame protest, but if you don't hold true to what you believe in, what are you good for? I want those damn games, and the NFL isn't getting a cent from me until they are a part of the package.)

I'll give you one:

Deebo motions to the backfield. McCaffrey motions in an orbit, ball snapped, Deebo picks up 6. Why does this matter? It gets defenses thinking about it, which leads to:

Deebo in motion, McCaffrey runs a similar motion at the snap, but this time is faked a handoff, and that leads to Aiyuk catching 20 yard pass, with every linebacker vacating the passing lanes because they were worried about McCaffrey, and the safety following Deebo over the middle, leaving an absolutely wide ass open lane to throw the deep in. Of course, he fumbled it. But the design—including the set up plays—was brilliant. And some might argue he wouldn't have fumbled it if he didn't need to catch such a high pass. But that's not what I'm discussing here.

And then later in the game, McCaffrey again comes in orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, and once again there is a playfake (to Deebo this time), and the whole defense follows, so McCaffrey can be wide open on the swing. Which incidentally has great designed blocking (via routes which get them in position, like a glorified screen pass), and McCaffrey gets inside the five yard line.

And then later int he game, the same orbit motion, this time with Deebo, with McCaffrey also in the backfield, with a playfake to Deebo, which moves linebackers, and followed by a rail route to McCaffrey which nearly goes the distance, if not for the Charger guy getting just enough of him for him to lose his balance out of bounds.

And then McCaffrey does the orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, drawing defensive eyes once more, except it's a handoff to Deebo who gets around fifteen yards, despite Aiyuk whiffing on his initial block.

All from essentially one design plan.

.
.
Also, for free, I'll give you one more none of you have considered: the key third down to Jennings. You'll note where the playcall had him breaking out. It wasn't at the yard to gain, where everyone and their mom would have expected. It was five or six yards passed it. Reminds me of our first Super Bowl win, when all season passes that went 20 yards down field were deep passes, and the 49ers did some deep comebacks that were wide open off of it. It was a great tendency breaker.

Nice stuff, man. Appreciate the work! NY wasn't going to do it.

"Great" to me is making life easy on your offense from the start. Playing to your strengths (PP + passing game). Staying ahead of the DC. Guys schemed wide open, perfectly timed screens, attacking a personnel weakness over and over (we know this one), using all your weapons, moving personnel around to confuse the defense, maybe a trick play, setting up an explosive (Dwelley bomb), etc.

This game overall (for Kyle) was about as vanilla as it gets. I'd say his game plan was vanilla but consistent...even persistent...but not "great."

But people might have different definitions of, great so it's all good.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by NCommand:
That's NY and 9ers4eva for ya.

Im in that group as well. Plus us being efficient isn't necessarily him trusting Jimmy. I'm willing to be vet most of those conversions are run plays. Which is fine really. It just seems (no data to confirm my feelings) that it's run run run. Only pass if we got to.

Which I guess shouldn't be surprising considering that's what we are the other 80 yards as well for the most part.

Last year Jimmy had 53 pass attempts in the red zone (Trey an additional 7 if you want to count all QB's). 37 rushing attempts by RB's ( plus 13 by Deebo so 50 total rushing attempts). So slightly more pass attempts than rushing; even if you only count Jimmy.

This compares to 441 passing attempts for Jimmy for the season (514 total QB pass attempts) versus 499 team rushing attempts.

Couldn't find team data on red zone breakdown rushing vs. passing touchdowns, would be curious as well.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

I already said it's cool to use him. He was just part of the issue on first downs. If you say those are good calls and they are execution issues because of what Mitchell did, that's fine too. But how many did Kyle need to see before he came off CMC? Doesn't that fall in the play calling pie too? Use him instead in the passing game while they're still expecting run? It's not like he didn't have 41 attempts to figure it out.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Im curious about the audible argument.

"Can" calls are switching to the 2nd play called in, not necessarily an audible. It can be a run to a run, a run to a pass a pass to a different pass. Without knowing the parameters of the gameplan, we can't know if it's a Jimmy or Kyle "can" and why.

"Oscar" is flipping the play from one side to the other.

"Rhino" is changing the snap count to, "on one".

NC went on a rant about kyle not having hot routes built into his concepts back in the KC game (I think he changed his opinion on this later). He also stated that Jimmy has absolutely no freedom once the play call has been given…Which I call nonsense. Like you said there's audibles built into those concepts, flipping plays or going to a different play. Calling hot routes etc. the coaches headset shuts off at 15 secs. So Jimmy has to make the right pre-snap reads.

Mmmm, I think you're on the right track.

"Freedom" is a loose way of putting it. Kyle's can calls are specific to the gameplan so we don't know what the call was or if there even is one for sure on some plays.

For example, sometimes there's dummy can calls. The TD to Jeff Wilson vs the Rams. I can't remember who but it was in a presser that the can call was a dummy call. They were gonna run that play regardless.

Moooost of the time, there is a "can to" in the playcall.

A "hot" isn't an audibled route and we have no function of doing that. Those are built in to the plays. A few examples. The picksafety against Denver, the "hot" was Juicecheck but he was thrown to the ground and taken out of the play.

The big play to ray-ray, McClouds route is labeled as, "outlet". 3 step drop plays have no hots because, well, it's a 3 step drop anyways. 5-7 step drops all have hots or outlets notated but they're not always great answers, IMO.

If the "hot" answer isn't a good one, Jimmy can't hand signal out to a receiver for a q8 route or something-which was an option under Holmgrens branch of the WCO and Steve used to do with Mariucci.

But, it's not like Jimmy can come to the line and if there's a wide-zone can to a split zone, but he sees a 0 blitz just audible to a quick pass. It doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

Yup.

Agreed. But not last Sunday. What, "great designs?"

Just going by the highlights, because I'm not paying the NFL for All 22 until they start putting up games from the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. (A lame protest, but if you don't hold true to what you believe in, what are you good for? I want those damn games, and the NFL isn't getting a cent from me until they are a part of the package.)

I'll give you one:

Deebo motions to the backfield. McCaffrey motions in an orbit, ball snapped, Deebo picks up 6. Why does this matter? It gets defenses thinking about it, which leads to:

Deebo in motion, McCaffrey runs a similar motion at the snap, but this time is faked a handoff, and that leads to Aiyuk catching 20 yard pass, with every linebacker vacating the passing lanes because they were worried about McCaffrey, and the safety following Deebo over the middle, leaving an absolutely wide ass open lane to throw the deep in. Of course, he fumbled it. But the design—including the set up plays—was brilliant. And some might argue he wouldn't have fumbled it if he didn't need to catch such a high pass. But that's not what I'm discussing here.

And then later in the game, McCaffrey again comes in orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, and once again there is a playfake (to Deebo this time), and the whole defense follows, so McCaffrey can be wide open on the swing. Which incidentally has great designed blocking (via routes which get them in position, like a glorified screen pass), and McCaffrey gets inside the five yard line.

And then later int he game, the same orbit motion, this time with Deebo, with McCaffrey also in the backfield, with a playfake to Deebo, which moves linebackers, and followed by a rail route to McCaffrey which nearly goes the distance, if not for the Charger guy getting just enough of him for him to lose his balance out of bounds.

And then McCaffrey does the orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, drawing defensive eyes once more, except it's a handoff to Deebo who gets around fifteen yards, despite Aiyuk whiffing on his initial block.

All from essentially one design plan.

.
.
Also, for free, I'll give you one more none of you have considered: the key third down to Jennings. You'll note where the playcall had him breaking out. It wasn't at the yard to gain, where everyone and their mom would have expected. It was five or six yards passed it. Reminds me of our first Super Bowl win, when all season passes that went 20 yards down field were deep passes, and the 49ers did some deep comebacks that were wide open off of it. It was a great tendency breaker.

Awesome post, 5GR.

I have to mention that the bolded was a call on 1st down.

Originally posted by Furlow:
The Jimmy haters say that Kyle's conservative play calling and decisions from Jimmy in the red zone are because he doesn't trust his QB. Yet here is a perfect example of a Kyle QB having to throw to his RB's (either by design or decision) even with an all-time great WR. So maybe Kyle's red zone play calling is just Kyle's personality, and not a "distrust" in Jimmy? Maybe he just doesn't "trust" any QB in the red zone and prefers to play to not lose (ie the Turtle Shell offense).

Throwing to your running backs doesn't indicate not trusting your qb.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

I just don't buy it that CMC went from having an all-time great performance as a RB two weeks ago to just sucking as you're trying to argue.

And you're talking about the most complicated sport in the world lol. It's 11 on 11 tackle football with the best of the best coaches (for the most part lol) in the game. It's NEVER as simple as one player sucked and one player was good. Especially in a one game sample size.

And I don't have a "bias" against Kyle. He's the head coach, and is in charge of the roster. So the personnel and play calling stops with him. He's made good adjustments the past two games and we've played much better in the 2nd half compared to games earlier in the season. Let's hope he continues to ditch the turtle shell offense in favor of letting his QB and WR's/RB's/TE's make plays.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
The Jimmy haters say that Kyle's conservative play calling and decisions from Jimmy in the red zone are because he doesn't trust his QB. Yet here is a perfect example of a Kyle QB having to throw to his RB's (either by design or decision) even with an all-time great WR. So maybe Kyle's red zone play calling is just Kyle's personality, and not a "distrust" in Jimmy? Maybe he just doesn't "trust" any QB in the red zone and prefers to play to not lose (ie the Turtle Shell offense).

Throwing to your running backs doesn't indicate not trusting your qb.

Interesting because that's precisely what the Jimmy haters (and Alex haters) have been saying for a decade plus.

But carry on.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Mmmm, I think you're on the right track.

"Freedom" is a loose way of putting it. Kyle's can calls are specific to the gameplan so we don't know what the call was or if there even is one for sure on some plays.

For example, sometimes there's dummy can calls. The TD to Jeff Wilson vs the Rams. I can't remember who but it was in a presser that the can call was a dummy call. They were gonna run that play regardless.

Moooost of the time, there is a "can to" in the playcall.

A "hot" isn't an audibled route and we have no function of doing that. Those are built in to the plays. A few examples. The picksafety against Denver, the "hot" was Juicecheck but he was thrown to the ground and taken out of the play.

The big play to ray-ray, McClouds route is labeled as, "outlet". 3 step drop plays have no hots because, well, it's a 3 step drop anyways. 5-7 step drops all have hots or outlets notated but they're not always great answers, IMO.

If the "hot" answer isn't a good one, Jimmy can't hand signal out to a receiver for a q8 route or something-which was an option under Holmgrens branch of the WCO and Steve used to do with Mariucci.

But, it's not like Jimmy can come to the line and if there's a wide-zone can to a split zone, but he sees a 0 blitz just audible to a quick pass. It doesn't work like that.

Mods, can we pin this?

Add to the, 'All22 Analysis - Coverages & Concepts' thread so it doesn't get lost?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

Yup.

Agreed. But not last Sunday. What, "great designs?"

Just going by the highlights, because I'm not paying the NFL for All 22 until they start putting up games from the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. (A lame protest, but if you don't hold true to what you believe in, what are you good for? I want those damn games, and the NFL isn't getting a cent from me until they are a part of the package.)

I'll give you one:

Deebo motions to the backfield. McCaffrey motions in an orbit, ball snapped, Deebo picks up 6. Why does this matter? It gets defenses thinking about it, which leads to:

Deebo in motion, McCaffrey runs a similar motion at the snap, but this time is faked a handoff, and that leads to Aiyuk catching 20 yard pass, with every linebacker vacating the passing lanes because they were worried about McCaffrey, and the safety following Deebo over the middle, leaving an absolutely wide ass open lane to throw the deep in. Of course, he fumbled it. But the design—including the set up plays—was brilliant. And some might argue he wouldn't have fumbled it if he didn't need to catch such a high pass. But that's not what I'm discussing here.

And then later in the game, McCaffrey again comes in orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, and once again there is a playfake (to Deebo this time), and the whole defense follows, so McCaffrey can be wide open on the swing. Which incidentally has great designed blocking (via routes which get them in position, like a glorified screen pass), and McCaffrey gets inside the five yard line.

And then later int he game, the same orbit motion, this time with Deebo, with McCaffrey also in the backfield, with a playfake to Deebo, which moves linebackers, and followed by a rail route to McCaffrey which nearly goes the distance, if not for the Charger guy getting just enough of him for him to lose his balance out of bounds.

And then McCaffrey does the orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, drawing defensive eyes once more, except it's a handoff to Deebo who gets around fifteen yards, despite Aiyuk whiffing on his initial block.

All from essentially one design plan.

.
.
Also, for free, I'll give you one more none of you have considered: the key third down to Jennings. You'll note where the playcall had him breaking out. It wasn't at the yard to gain, where everyone and their mom would have expected. It was five or six yards passed it. Reminds me of our first Super Bowl win, when all season passes that went 20 yards down field were deep passes, and the 49ers did some deep comebacks that were wide open off of it. It was a great tendency breaker.

Nice stuff, man. Appreciate the work! NY wasn't going to do it.

"Great" to me is making life easy on your offense from the start. Playing to your strengths (PP + passing game). Staying ahead of the DC. Guys schemed wide open, perfectly timed screens, attacking a personnel weakness over and over (we know this one), using all your weapons, moving personnel around to confuse the defense, maybe a trick play, setting up an explosive (Dwelley bomb), etc.

This game overall (for Kyle) was about as vanilla as it gets. I'd say his game plan was vanilla but consistent...even persistent...but not "great."

But people might have different definitions of, great so it's all good.

Sometimes players decide the outcome of plays. What I've bolded here is also what I already pointed out from the highlights videos as having happened in the game. Aiyuk doesn't drop a pass and fumble the ball, we score two additional touchdowns.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

I already said it's cool to use him. He was just part of the issue on first downs. If you say those are good calls and they are execution issues because of what Mitchell did, that's fine too. But how many did Kyle need to see before he came off CMC? Doesn't that fall in the play calling pie too? Use him instead in the passing game while they're still expecting run? It's not like he didn't have 41 attempts to figure it out.

Now that is a really good question. If I had to guess. It was probably a little bit of he didn't want to tip his hand with who was lining up out there and giving CMC the benefit of the doubt. Hoping he would turn it around. If I am not mistaking, they started using Mitchell more late in the 4th quarter when we were trying to run out the clock and why Mitchell ended up with more carries. Kyle did say the plan was to get them equal carries.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Interesting because that's precisely what the Jimmy haters (and Alex haters) have been saying for a decade plus.

But carry on.

That's a stupid take then. If your RB is wide open it's dumb to throw anywhere else. You shouldn't be throwing to Julio Jones if he's double covered.

The best offenses are ones where you don't FEATURE anyone. You throw to the open guy, whoever that is. Our offenses with TO were terribly inefficient because everything went through him. I want no part of that.