NY Giants coaches film analysis

Plays on First Down

11th drive of the game

#28 - Power play left (Power O) -- Gore for +8

Vance provides the kickout block. Boone pulls and leads through.




The 49ers would go on to move the chains for a new set of downs.


#29 - Pass completed to Miller for +11. Move the chains.

49ers fake the toss left and will sneak Miller across the formation as Kap and Miller go against the flow of the OIine.


The fake toss gets the LBs leaning to their right while Miller sneaks behind the Oline against the flow of the Oline.


Room for Miller. Kap starts his windup.


A bit out of the norm as the 49ers throw the ball while in clock killing mode.


#30 - Hyde run for +1
Looks like an Iso FB lead.


2nd Down: Gore run for +2 (guard lead right)
3rd Down: post#330

The drive ends in a punt.
.
.
That's the last drive of the game.

Well done thl408!

Here is the latest Roman comment...he says "nobody knows?" We beg to differ! Ha. Do you agree...

"...The Giants took a pretty extreme approach to stopping the run against some of our personnel groups, and he (CK) was masterful in recognizing what they were doing (and) getting us into the appropriate play. But nobody knows about that stuff. It had a big impact on the game."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2014/11/20/49ers-greg-roman-theres-a-lot-of-things-beyond-the-point-total-that-were-very-very-positive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

Originally posted by NCommand:

Well there are many that don't fully subscribe to that...it's an offensive system league. If you can build an effecient and consistent offensive system, defense and ST can mostly help win Championships. QB-centric offenses like the Giants, former Colts, Packers, Pats, Broncos, etc. tend to flame out when it matters. Also, a QB-centric offense typically means the teams $ is tied up in that QB which often times means you'll suffer in other critical areas as well.

So to me, it's still a team sport. The NFL has TRIED to make it a "pass happy league" for entertainment purposes but unfortunately for them, teams like Ravens, Niners and Hawks have dominated instead.

Sorry, I digress...back to your analysis.

I agree with your analysis NCommand, you make excellent points. Dan Marino comes to mind, a great QB that never won. When all the money goes in one direction it's tough to build a balanced roster. Take a look back at the dynasties, the QB's aren't top five or even top ten for that matter, Starr, Bradshaw, the Redskins winning with different QB's each time they won. I'm sure many of you will point to Joe, however, there was no cap back then.

Originally posted by NCommand:


Well done thl408!

Here is the latest Roman comment...he says "nobody knows?" We beg to differ! Ha. Do you agree...

"...The Giants took a pretty extreme approach to stopping the run against some of our personnel groups, and he (CK) was masterful in recognizing what they were doing (and) getting us into the appropriate play. But nobody knows about that stuff. It had a big impact on the game."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2014/11/20/49ers-greg-roman-theres-a-lot-of-things-beyond-the-point-total-that-were-very-very-positive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Originally posted by thl408:
I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Why do you think that the 49ers don't run out of the spread more often? Watching Seattle, that is one of the main differences I note from their offense, they are more eager to run out of "passing formations" and usually it seems to work pretty well for them, even without a dominant OL.

Originally posted by RishikeshA:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Well there are many that don't fully subscribe to that...it's an offensive system league. If you can build an effecient and consistent offensive system, defense and ST can mostly help win Championships. QB-centric offenses like the Giants, former Colts, Packers, Pats, Broncos, etc. tend to flame out when it matters. Also, a QB-centric offense typically means the teams $ is tied up in that QB which often times means you'll suffer in other critical areas as well.

So to me, it's still a team sport. The NFL has TRIED to make it a "pass happy league" for entertainment purposes but unfortunately for them, teams like Ravens, Niners and Hawks have dominated instead.

Sorry, I digress...back to your analysis.

I agree with your analysis NCommand, you make excellent points. Dan Marino comes to mind, a great QB that never won. When all the money goes in one direction it's tough to build a balanced roster. Take a look back at the dynasties, the QB's aren't top five or even top ten for that matter, Starr, Bradshaw, the Redskins winning with different QB's each time they won. I'm sure many of you will point to Joe, however, there was no cap back then.

And we had the best defense and ST's in the league then as well.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Well done thl408!

Here is the latest Roman comment...he says "nobody knows?" We beg to differ! Ha. Do you agree...

"...The Giants took a pretty extreme approach to stopping the run against some of our personnel groups, and he (CK) was masterful in recognizing what they were doing (and) getting us into the appropriate play. But nobody knows about that stuff. It had a big impact on the game."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2014/11/20/49ers-greg-roman-theres-a-lot-of-things-beyond-the-point-total-that-were-very-very-positive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Looking at your gifs/stills, I didn't see anything really too exotic about their 8-man box on these first down defenses. Just 8 or 9 on 7 and winning those battles mostly (sometimes still giving up some 4+ yards but also generating some pressure too when it was a pass). Also, I didn't see anything unusual about our personnel groupings either that had the defense substituting or checking out of alignments...in short, it just looked pretty straight-up and winning the battles, sometimes holding the point while the extra man crashed in, on predictable sets.

As to your point, I agree, we don't really have a deep threat although I certainly wished we could have hit McDonald on the 2nd attempt. Are we just not using Lloyd deep anymore as a primary target? What happened to Carrier? I also wonder why we don't attack more with Johnson inside...he could have had a field day against these LB's. Good to see CK doing a better job of hitting his shorter routes early and with some touch as well this game!

PS: How sickening is it to hear that DeSean Jackson was "this close" to signing with us? He would have been ideal for THIS offense...although, I seriously question whether or not we'd use him properly.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Looking at your gifs/stills, I didn't see anything really too exotic about their 8-man box on these first down defenses. Just 8 or 9 on 7 and winning those battles mostly (sometimes still giving up some 4+ yards but also generating some pressure too when it was a pass). Also, I didn't see anything unusual about our personnel groupings either that had the defense substituting or checking out of alignments...in short, it just looked pretty straight-up and winning the battles, sometimes holding the point while the extra man crashed in, on predictable sets.

As to your point, I agree, we don't really have a deep threat allow I certainly wished we could have hit McDonald on the 2nd attempt. Are we just not using Lloyd deep anymore as a primary target? I also wonder why we don't attack more with Johnson inside...he could have had a field day against these LB's. Good to see CK doing a better job of hitting his shorter routes early and with some touch as well.

PS: How sickening is it to hear that DeSean Jackson was "this close" to signing with us. He would have been ideal for THIS offense...although, I seriously question whether or not we'd use him properly.

hell no we wouldn't use him properly...do we use Stevie Johnson properly?

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by thl408:
I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Why do you think that the 49ers don't run out of the spread more often? Watching Seattle, that is one of the main differences I note from their offense, they are more eager to run out of "passing formations" and usually it seems to work pretty well for them, even without a dominant OL.

I have absolutely no clue. It's not like when the 49ers tried it they sucked. SEA seems comfortable running without a FB so it is a little more 'natural' for them to run out of 3WR sets. Along with being a zone blocking team and having a badass RB, they don't need a FB. My hypothesis is that Gore loves reading his lead blocker's block and cutting off of that. Hyde rarely ran with a lead blocker in college so I thought the 49ers would use Hyde in this manner (running out of passing formations/personnel).

Even if it goes against Harbaugh's Bo Schem philosophy of having a bruising lead blocker, they need to do it because when I see 3 WRs on the field, it's a pass.

This season, the 49ers have done well when running out of 3 WR sets as they did it 6 times in the 2nd half of @STL. They may have done it more here and there throughout this season, but in this game they made a concerted effort to do it, and it worked.
From STL game 1 analysis thread:

Runs from 11 Personnel
#1: +7 yards
#2: +7 yards
#3: +9 yards
#4: +7 yards
#5: no gain
#6: +1 yard
http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/179926-st-louis-rams-week-coaches-film-analysis/page5/#post67

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Well done thl408!

Here is the latest Roman comment...he says "nobody knows?" We beg to differ! Ha. Do you agree...

"...The Giants took a pretty extreme approach to stopping the run against some of our personnel groups, and he (CK) was masterful in recognizing what they were doing (and) getting us into the appropriate play. But nobody knows about that stuff. It had a big impact on the game."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2014/11/20/49ers-greg-roman-theres-a-lot-of-things-beyond-the-point-total-that-were-very-very-positive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Looking at your gifs/stills, I didn't see anything really too exotic about their 8-man box on these first down defenses. Just 8 or 9 on 7 and winning those battles mostly (sometimes still giving up some 4+ yards but also generating some pressure too when it was a pass). Also, I didn't see anything unusual about our personnel groupings either that had the defense substituting or checking out of alignments...in short, it just looked pretty straight-up and winning the battles, sometimes holding the point while the extra man crashed in, on predictable sets.

As to your point, I agree, we don't really have a deep threat although I certainly wished we could have hit McDonald on the 2nd attempt. Are we just not using Lloyd deep anymore as a primary target? What happened to Carrier? I also wonder why we don't attack more with Johnson inside...he could have had a field day against these LB's. Good to see CK doing a better job of hitting his shorter routes early and with some touch as well this game!

PS: How sickening is it to hear that DeSean Jackson was "this close" to signing with us? He would have been ideal for THIS offense...although, I seriously question whether or not we'd use him properly.

I hope someone can chime in with more input on what NYG was doing with their fronts and what Roman alluded to.

Carrier was in the game here and there, not sure why he wasn't the one sent deep. At least he's been able to come up with a few tough catches this season.

About SJ, I think the 49ers may be 'pigeon holing' him into a certain role. They can't just line him up on the outside, to the weak side, and have him run slants all day. It's too predictable. Move him around and have him run various routes that break inside and outside. He might be taking snaps away from Boldin, but SJ can't set up CBs with his slick moves if all he's doing is running slants. Although he's great at it, he has to be given a chance to do more than just that so the threat is there of him cutting to the outside as well as the inside. Just imo of SJ.

Originally posted by sincalfaithful:
hell no we wouldn't use him properly...do we use Stevie Johnson properly?

We'd line him up once, maybe twice a game to run a deep go route. Buuuuut, not to actually be a receiving threat on the play. Just to be a decoy and clear out the defenders so we can make a 5 yard throw to crabs.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Well done thl408!

Here is the latest Roman comment...he says "nobody knows?" We beg to differ! Ha. Do you agree...

"...The Giants took a pretty extreme approach to stopping the run against some of our personnel groups, and he (CK) was masterful in recognizing what they were doing (and) getting us into the appropriate play. But nobody knows about that stuff. It had a big impact on the game."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2014/11/20/49ers-greg-roman-theres-a-lot-of-things-beyond-the-point-total-that-were-very-very-positive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Looking at your gifs/stills, I didn't see anything really too exotic about their 8-man box on these first down defenses. Just 8 or 9 on 7 and winning those battles mostly (sometimes still giving up some 4+ yards but also generating some pressure too when it was a pass). Also, I didn't see anything unusual about our personnel groupings either that had the defense substituting or checking out of alignments...in short, it just looked pretty straight-up and winning the battles, sometimes holding the point while the extra man crashed in, on predictable sets.

As to your point, I agree, we don't really have a deep threat although I certainly wished we could have hit McDonald on the 2nd attempt. Are we just not using Lloyd deep anymore as a primary target? What happened to Carrier? I also wonder why we don't attack more with Johnson inside...he could have had a field day against these LB's. Good to see CK doing a better job of hitting his shorter routes early and with some touch as well this game!

PS: How sickening is it to hear that DeSean Jackson was "this close" to signing with us? He would have been ideal for THIS offense...although, I seriously question whether or not we'd use him properly.

I hope someone can chime in with more input on what NYG was doing with their fronts and what Roman alluded to.

Carrier was in the game here and there, not sure why he wasn't the one sent deep. At least he's been able to come up with a few tough catches this season.

About SJ, I think the 49ers may be 'pigeon holing' him into a certain role. They can't just line him up on the outside, to the weak side, and have him run slants all day. It's too predictable. Move him around and have him run various routes that break inside and outside. He might be taking snaps away from Boldin, but SJ can't set up CBs with his slick moves if all he's doing is running slants. Although he's great at it, he has to be given a chance to do more than just that so the threat is there of him cutting to the outside as well as the inside. Just imo of SJ.

Totally agree.

BTW: I've been waiting 3 days to say this but thanks for making me wett!

So to answer Jonnydel again about what to do different on 1st, scheme diversity. Far too many runs on first down out of basic power personnel. Way too few throws. Way more runs and throws from 11 personnel.

The lack of leadership to me is with Roman and Harbaugh. You see it when you read between the lines of player quotes. They don't have confidence in this system and it shows on Sundays.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Well done thl408!

Here is the latest Roman comment...he says "nobody knows?" We beg to differ! Ha. Do you agree...

"...The Giants took a pretty extreme approach to stopping the run against some of our personnel groups, and he (CK) was masterful in recognizing what they were doing (and) getting us into the appropriate play. But nobody knows about that stuff. It had a big impact on the game."

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2014/11/20/49ers-greg-roman-theres-a-lot-of-things-beyond-the-point-total-that-were-very-very-positive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

I think based on some of the runs against 8 man boxes, which were nearly all of them, if it went for a good gain (4 or more) I would think that's what Roman is alluding to by saying the quote above.

Other than that, I thought the 49ers could have went about the passing game differently by being deliberate about attacking the LBs. Too many deep shots with no deep threat. I know the 49ers thought they had the ground game going so it was natural to take the deep shots, but you still need deep threats (or a deep threat) to do it and they don't have any. VD is still hurt and the most glaring sign was that it was Vance going deep not VD. That is usually VD's territory.

Looking at your gifs/stills, I didn't see anything really too exotic about their 8-man box on these first down defenses. Just 8 or 9 on 7 and winning those battles mostly (sometimes still giving up some 4+ yards but also generating some pressure too when it was a pass). Also, I didn't see anything unusual about our personnel groupings either that had the defense substituting or checking out of alignments...in short, it just looked pretty straight-up and winning the battles, sometimes holding the point while the extra man crashed in, on predictable sets.

As to your point, I agree, we don't really have a deep threat although I certainly wished we could have hit McDonald on the 2nd attempt. Are we just not using Lloyd deep anymore as a primary target? What happened to Carrier? I also wonder why we don't attack more with Johnson inside...he could have had a field day against these LB's. Good to see CK doing a better job of hitting his shorter routes early and with some touch as well this game!

PS: How sickening is it to hear that DeSean Jackson was "this close" to signing with us? He would have been ideal for THIS offense...although, I seriously question whether or not we'd use him properly.

Actually you alluded to our deep threat and that's Lloyd. he may be older, but he's proven he can get behind defenses and that 80 yarder proved he still has some speed. Can't remember the DB's name that he outran, but he was supposed to run a 4.3-4.4 forty and he couldn't catch Mr Lloyd. And, Lloyd's shown he still has those incredible hands and body control. Been said before by others, but I think we need to use the combo of Boldin, Johnson and Lloyd more often. The major problem with any deep threat is what appears to be Kap's weakness at throwing an accurate deep ball. THAT may be the biggest impediment, and not necessarily the absence of a long ball threat.

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Another interesting stat I found was that the 49ers' average down and distance on 3rd down is actually GREATER than 2nd down.

Average yards to go on 2nd down -- 7.59
Average yards to go on 3rd down -- 7.61

Basically, this means this team sucks royally on 2nd down.

So 2/3rd of the time we go backwards on 1st down, and then on average, we are going backwards on 2nd down. The f**k?

And then, on third down, when we have our backs against a wall, Kap is bailing our asses out.