There are 339 users in the forums
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Thread of 3rd and long throws from Jimmy (that were actually thrown past the 1st down sticks)
Jimmy G's throws 3rd and 5 or longer that went past the first down marker.
— Rich (@richjmadrid) November 15, 2022
3rd-and-12 pic.twitter.com/cyWvOhoHZ3
good reads, throw, and good play calling. Wild that can be a thing!
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
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 stated 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.
I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.
Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.
Given they were still down in the 4Q, I wouldn't go that far. After their other two DT's went down it started to wear on them half way through the 4th and esp. on the final TD drive.
The original point was, it didn't have to be perfect execution or this difficult. They have plenty of talent and options and had two weeks to prepare for any type of game flow against a DC Kyle knows. And full health.
In your estimation, what would a game plan and play calling have to look like for you to have concerns? Even in a win?
Did you skip the part where I said it was execution that held the scoring back?
ST, the dropped TD. CMC rushing. Yup.
As to the bold? No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering.
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
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 stated 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.
I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.
Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.
Given they were still down in the 4Q, I wouldn't go that far. After their other two DT's went down it started to wear on them half way through the 4th and esp. on the final TD drive.
The original point was, it didn't have to be perfect execution or this difficult. They have plenty of talent and options and had two weeks to prepare for any type of game flow against a DC Kyle knows. And full health.
In your estimation, what would a game plan and play calling have to look like for you to have concerns? Even in a win?
Did you skip the part where I said it was execution that held the scoring back?
ST, the dropped TD. CMC rushing. Yup.
As to the bold? No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering.
When our offense fails to put up 300+ yards. Even if we win the game 13-10.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Thread of 3rd and long throws from Jimmy (that were actually thrown past the 1st down sticks)
Jimmy G's throws 3rd and 5 or longer that went past the first down marker.
— Rich (@richjmadrid) November 15, 2022
3rd-and-12 pic.twitter.com/cyWvOhoHZ3
good reads, throw, and good play calling. Wild that can be a thing!
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
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 stated 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.
I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.
Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.
Given they were still down in the 4Q, I wouldn't go that far. After their other two DT's went down it started to wear on them half way through the 4th and esp. on the final TD drive.
The original point was, it didn't have to be perfect execution or this difficult. They have plenty of talent and options and had two weeks to prepare for any type of game flow against a DC Kyle knows. And full health.
In your estimation, what would a game plan and play calling have to look like for you to have concerns? Even in a win?
Did you skip the part where I said it was execution that held the scoring back?
ST, the dropped TD. CMC rushing. Yup.
As to the bold? No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering.
When our offense fails to put up 300+ yards. Even if we win the game 13-10.
Unless it's on execution, of course.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by krizay:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Julio Jones had 2 redzone touchdowns in 2016.
I almost posted the same thing
Classic example of something sounding correct in theory but not in reality.
Classic example of proving the point you've been arguing against for years, and not realizing it.
What exactly are you saying I have been arguing against?
Dude you and the other Jimmy haters have been arguing for YEARS that Kyle doesn't trust Jimmy, and that's why he checks down to RB's and doesn't throw to WR's. That he's conservative, especially in the red zone, because of his QB. Then you cite a stat that in Matt Ryan's MVP season (the one that the Jimmy haters LOVE to reference to disparage Jimmy) that Julio only had 2 TD's in the red zone. Two RB's had more red zone targets than him. So that is PROOF that it's a Kyle offensive design/problem/issue or whatever you want to call it.
Kyle was, is, and likely always will be a smash mouth, physical, run oriented offensive play caller. Doesn't matter who is QB is, that's what he wants to do. You proved it lol. Again, thank you.
*Sigh* where to even begin with this post.
First and foremost, you are talking to the wrong person. I was saying over and over again that I have no idea if Kyle trusts Jimmy fully or not, and there is a ton of evidence that proves EITHER opinion. I posted that many many times, specifically after the 2019 playoffs. So don't lump me in with those people. I can try to find receipts if you'd like.
Secondly, Matt Ryan had 23 redzone touchdowns in 2019. Twenty three. You are trying to draw conclusions about Kyle Shanahan and comparing two totally different strategies. Ryan threw substantially more RZ touchdown passes than Jimmy has in his best season. It wasn't a reflection of Julio Jones at all. It was a reflection of Ryan throwing a lot of touchdown passes in the Redzone and not Jimmy. You can decide for yourself what the reason for that is. (This would evidence that Kyle doesn't fully trust Jimmy, but like I said, there is plenty of evidence on the other side as well).
Wait you don't think having Julio Jones helped their red zone offense at all? Whoa okay.
I reread my post right after I clicked submit and thought to myself that I probably should edit the "at all" part, but left it alone. Sure enough, you nitpicked those few words out of my entire post and ignored everything else. I should have known better.
Having Julio obviously helped, but not in the way that you were implying when you initially brought him up...and you know that. He was likely double teamed a bunch in the redzone, similar to how Kittle is....which opened the offense up for TWENTY ONE redzone touchdown passes for the other players. One would assume the blanketing of Kittle in the redzone would do the same for us, but here we are.
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
The road to 10,000 is wide open.. excellent
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
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 stated 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.
I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.
Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.
Given they were still down in the 4Q, I wouldn't go that far. After their other two DT's went down it started to wear on them half way through the 4th and esp. on the final TD drive.
The original point was, it didn't have to be perfect execution or this difficult. They have plenty of talent and options and had two weeks to prepare for any type of game flow against a DC Kyle knows. And full health.
In your estimation, what would a game plan and play calling have to look like for you to have concerns? Even in a win?
Did you skip the part where I said it was execution that held the scoring back?
ST, the dropped TD. CMC rushing. Yup.
As to the bold? No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering.
When our offense fails to put up 300+ yards. Even if we win the game 13-10.
Unless it's on execution, of course.
Unless of course you believe that dropped passes, fumbles, interceptions, sacks and penalties are all due to poor playcalling.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
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 stated 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.
I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.
Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.
Given they were still down in the 4Q, I wouldn't go that far. After their other two DT's went down it started to wear on them half way through the 4th and esp. on the final TD drive.
The original point was, it didn't have to be perfect execution or this difficult. They have plenty of talent and options and had two weeks to prepare for any type of game flow against a DC Kyle knows. And full health.
In your estimation, what would a game plan and play calling have to look like for you to have concerns? Even in a win?
Did you skip the part where I said it was execution that held the scoring back?
ST, the dropped TD. CMC rushing. Yup.
As to the bold? No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering.
When our offense fails to put up 300+ yards. Even if we win the game 13-10.
Unless it's on execution, of course.
Unless of course you believe that dropped passes, fumbles, interceptions, sacks and penalties are all due to poor playcalling.
Haha. Definitely not. Those are on Kyle, the HC.
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
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 stated 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.
I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.
Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.
Given they were still down in the 4Q, I wouldn't go that far. After their other two DT's went down it started to wear on them half way through the 4th and esp. on the final TD drive.
The original point was, it didn't have to be perfect execution or this difficult. They have plenty of talent and options and had two weeks to prepare for any type of game flow against a DC Kyle knows. And full health.
In your estimation, what would a game plan and play calling have to look like for you to have concerns? Even in a win?
Did you skip the part where I said it was execution that held the scoring back?
ST, the dropped TD. CMC rushing. Yup.
As to the bold? No worries if you don't feel comfortable answering.
When our offense fails to put up 300+ yards. Even if we win the game 13-10.
Unless it's on execution, of course.
Unless of course you believe that dropped passes, fumbles, interceptions, sacks and penalties are all due to poor playcalling.
Haha. Definitely not. Those are on Kyle, the HC.
He is the leader of this team so yes, the burden of fixing these execution issues lies squarely on his shoulders. I have said as much going back to this time last season.
Originally posted by NCommand:
They were one of the worst run defenses coming in, and then lost two more DT's in-game.
Our strength is not running right now. We're a much better pass protection team and we have far too many weapons......
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by random49er:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Buckle up, bro. This is going to linger all week. Random is like the terminator, he absolutely will not stop, until you are dead! Lol
Let's all congratulate Furlow for 1st introducing the thread topic (midgame) he whines about not going away....
Poor Jimmy. So handsome, yet so hated.
I'm sure if I didn't post that, none of the hater crew would have mentioned it.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Mods, can we pin this?
Add to the, 'All22 Analysis - Coverages & Concepts' thread so it doesn't get lost?
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
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.
