49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
We weren't just a team making in the playoff. We won playoff games. We got to the Superbowl, and the NFC championship in the other year. So we didn't just have a shot, we had really good shots.

Luck is always in involved in the final outcome.

Eh, the word "Luck" gets thrown around too much for my liking.

More often than not, teams with good coaching and talent tend to win super bowls.

But you can never ignore luck as a factor. I certainly believe a team that has not make the playoff or not win a single playoff games in the last 3 seasons were simply not good enough to win Championship.

But NC basically said a team that loss in the Superbowl in 2019 and loss in the NFC Championship in 2021 never had a chance in those 3 seasons because they didn't win championships. That I have to disagreed. This was from our discussion in the Kyle Shannaham thread in the last couple of days.

Do you read? Is this NY's other account? I literally just posted a couple pages back they still had a chance even under those extreme circumstances. Circumstances elite QB's don't win under.

In the Kyle Shannahan thread, you used the end results of 2019 and 2021 season as conclusive evidence that the team was simply not good enough to win Championships.

Um, clearly it wasn't in real life. LOL. Unless we're playing Madden. Was it still possible? Of course. Why given Sunday, right?

I guess you are not smart enough to undert the luck factor.

Originally posted by NCommand:
If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The pass with 3:23 to go with guys right in front of him where he can't even step in is not "an Alex Smith level effort". That's an elite throw that few guys can make. It basically won them the game.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
A shot? Of course. Every team that gets in the playoffs has a shot. We had a 'shot' with a 42% pressure rate and less than 3 ypc. Insane. We had a shot. Yes. But that's more of a testament to the rest of the roster isn't it? And it proved fatal.

Do you want to win one?

They were bad, but a one-legged Trent Williams and Tom "freaking" Compton will do that.

We had a bad luck in TW's injury. We would have a very reasonable change to win that game and head to the Superbowl if TW was completely healthy.

That was a good example of the luck factor in winning championships. It is ridiculously stupid for NC to make these definitive statement that we didn't win last season so we had zero chance (and the team wasn't good enough) from the very beginning.

We were able to generate a lot of pressure. We had 2 sacks, they had 0 sacks. We had 2.5 ypc and they had 2.4 ypc. We allowed their O to dink and dunk down the field. We held them to 2 fieldgoals on their last 2 real possessions. The defense made the correct decision in not being aggressive and end up giving up the big play. The offense got stuck in neutral after that long time consuming TD in the 3rd. The truth is the defense missed 1 real opportunity in the game and the offense missed at least 5.

Bingo. And when this started they were down. This idea Stafford made plays under pressure is a myth. He simply passed short on every play but one to go ahead and ice the game. And he STILL almost gave the game away.

That's not taking anything away from his year overall or his talent; just stating the facts in the end.

Stafford made the plays that were there to be made. You can argue all you want. He still executed the game plan. Jimmy missed a handful of opportunities that would have put the game away. Including short, pressure beater, passes (just like Stafford) in which he failed to execute. He also had missed wide open receivers on multiple plays. Both defenses dropped int's in the game.

If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The point is he made the plays that were there and the other QB did not. All of Jimmy's passes were short also. 3 of 9 for 30 yards, 2 delay of games and an interception is not a championship winning performance. You want to give Jimmy a pass and discredit Stafford just to prove a point that our O line was more terrible than their terrible O line in that game, than fine. Whatever.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
A shot? Of course. Every team that gets in the playoffs has a shot. We had a 'shot' with a 42% pressure rate and less than 3 ypc. Insane. We had a shot. Yes. But that's more of a testament to the rest of the roster isn't it? And it proved fatal.

Do you want to win one?

They were bad, but a one-legged Trent Williams and Tom "freaking" Compton will do that.

We had a bad luck in TW's injury. We would have a very reasonable change to win that game and head to the Superbowl if TW was completely healthy.

That was a good example of the luck factor in winning championships. It is ridiculously stupid for NC to make these definitive statement that we didn't win last season so we had zero chance (and the team wasn't good enough) from the very beginning.

We were able to generate a lot of pressure. We had 2 sacks, they had 0 sacks. We had 2.5 ypc and they had 2.4 ypc. We allowed their O to dink and dunk down the field. We held them to 2 fieldgoals on their last 2 real possessions. The defense made the correct decision in not being aggressive and end up giving up the big play. The offense got stuck in neutral after that long time consuming TD in the 3rd. The truth is the defense missed 1 real opportunity in the game and the offense missed at least 5.

Bingo. And when this started they were down. This idea Stafford made plays under pressure is a myth. He simply passed short on every play but one to go ahead and ice the game. And he STILL almost gave the game away.

That's not taking anything away from his year overall or his talent; just stating the facts in the end.

Stafford made the plays that were there to be made. You can argue all you want. He still executed the game plan. Jimmy missed a handful of opportunities that would have put the game away. Including short, pressure beater, passes (just like Stafford) in which he failed to execute. He also had missed wide open receivers on multiple plays. Both defenses dropped int's in the game.

If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The point is he made the plays that were there and the other QB did not. All of Jimmy's passes were short also. 3 of 9 for 30 yards, 2 delay of games and an interception is not a championship winning performance. You want to give Jimmy a pass and discredit Stafford just to prove a point that our O line was more terrible than their terrible O line in that game, than fine. Whatever.

Oh I'm definitely not giving Jimmy a pass. Haha.

Even under the circumstances he still had his chances. I just wanted to displell the myth that Stafford was under pressure and making game winning decisions under duress.

When you said, "I still think we could have won" I agree with you.

As to the OL, I can't speak to the splits for both teams that game but no doubt their OL only allowed 1 pressure down the stretch...like the Chiefs IIRC when they went on their run. That's 'probably' not a coincidence IMHO.

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 libertyforever:

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
A shot? Of course. Every team that gets in the playoffs has a shot. We had a 'shot' with a 42% pressure rate and less than 3 ypc. Insane. We had a shot. Yes. But that's more of a testament to the rest of the roster isn't it? And it proved fatal.

Do you want to win one?

They were bad, but a one-legged Trent Williams and Tom "freaking" Compton will do that.

We had a bad luck in TW's injury. We would have a very reasonable change to win that game and head to the Superbowl if TW was completely healthy.

That was a good example of the luck factor in winning championships. It is ridiculously stupid for NC to make these definitive statement that we didn't win last season so we had zero chance (and the team wasn't good enough) from the very beginning.

We were able to generate a lot of pressure. We had 2 sacks, they had 0 sacks. We had 2.5 ypc and they had 2.4 ypc. We allowed their O to dink and dunk down the field. We held them to 2 fieldgoals on their last 2 real possessions. The defense made the correct decision in not being aggressive and end up giving up the big play. The offense got stuck in neutral after that long time consuming TD in the 3rd. The truth is the defense missed 1 real opportunity in the game and the offense missed at least 5.

Bingo. And when this started they were down. This idea Stafford made plays under pressure is a myth. He simply passed short on every play but one to go ahead and ice the game. And he STILL almost gave the game away.

That's not taking anything away from his year overall or his talent; just stating the facts in the end.

Stafford made the plays that were there to be made. You can argue all you want. He still executed the game plan. Jimmy missed a handful of opportunities that would have put the game away. Including short, pressure beater, passes (just like Stafford) in which he failed to execute. He also had missed wide open receivers on multiple plays. Both defenses dropped int's in the game.

If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The point is he made the plays that were there and the other QB did not. All of Jimmy's passes were short also. 3 of 9 for 30 yards, 2 delay of games and an interception is not a championship winning performance. You want to give Jimmy a pass and discredit Stafford just to prove a point that our O line was more terrible than their terrible O line in that game, than fine. Whatever.

Oh I'm definitely not giving Jimmy a pass. Haha.

Even under the circumstances he still had his chances. I just wanted to displell the myth that Stafford was under pressure and making game winning decisions under duress.

When you said, "I still think we could have won" I agree with you.

As to the OL, I can't speak to the splits for both teams that game but no doubt their OL only allowed 1 pressure down the stretch...like the Chiefs IIRC when they went on their run. That's 'probably' not a coincidence IMHO.

Both O lines played like crap. 2.4 ypc and 2.5 ypc. Both O lines gave up a lot of pressures. Its kind of difficult to get pressure on a QB though when he is throwing screens and other quick passes. A quick passing game can negate even the staunchest pass rushes in the NFL.

Jimmy had those opportunities as well and he botched on a couple of them down the stretch that would have kept drives alive. One to Hasty on a screen and one to Kittle sneaking out after faking a pass block. There were plays that the O line held up and receivers were open and yet we couldn't move the chains because the QB either didn't see the wide open receiver or refused to pull the trigger.

How many wide open receivers did stafford miss? I am willing to bet it wasn't as many as Jimmy.

Now that we have an extra 17 million in cap space... let's go shopping for some hogs

Originally posted by Brucey72:
Now that we have an extra 17 million in cap space... let's go shopping for some hogs

Who exactly do you have in mind?

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Brucey72:
Now that we have an extra 17 million in cap space... let's go shopping for some hogs

Who exactly do you have in mind?

Leatherwood, Jenkins, Winn

Originally posted by Brucey72:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Brucey72:
Now that we have an extra 17 million in cap space... let's go shopping for some hogs

Who exactly do you have in mind?

Leatherwood, Jenkins, Winn

I am not impressed by any of those guys. I wouldn't mind spending money and draft capital if there were someone worth going after who may be available via trade.

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 libertyforever:

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
A shot? Of course. Every team that gets in the playoffs has a shot. We had a 'shot' with a 42% pressure rate and less than 3 ypc. Insane. We had a shot. Yes. But that's more of a testament to the rest of the roster isn't it? And it proved fatal.

Do you want to win one?

They were bad, but a one-legged Trent Williams and Tom "freaking" Compton will do that.

We had a bad luck in TW's injury. We would have a very reasonable change to win that game and head to the Superbowl if TW was completely healthy.

That was a good example of the luck factor in winning championships. It is ridiculously stupid for NC to make these definitive statement that we didn't win last season so we had zero chance (and the team wasn't good enough) from the very beginning.

We were able to generate a lot of pressure. We had 2 sacks, they had 0 sacks. We had 2.5 ypc and they had 2.4 ypc. We allowed their O to dink and dunk down the field. We held them to 2 fieldgoals on their last 2 real possessions. The defense made the correct decision in not being aggressive and end up giving up the big play. The offense got stuck in neutral after that long time consuming TD in the 3rd. The truth is the defense missed 1 real opportunity in the game and the offense missed at least 5.

Bingo. And when this started they were down. This idea Stafford made plays under pressure is a myth. He simply passed short on every play but one to go ahead and ice the game. And he STILL almost gave the game away.

That's not taking anything away from his year overall or his talent; just stating the facts in the end.

Stafford made the plays that were there to be made. You can argue all you want. He still executed the game plan. Jimmy missed a handful of opportunities that would have put the game away. Including short, pressure beater, passes (just like Stafford) in which he failed to execute. He also had missed wide open receivers on multiple plays. Both defenses dropped int's in the game.

If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The point is he made the plays that were there and the other QB did not. All of Jimmy's passes were short also. 3 of 9 for 30 yards, 2 delay of games and an interception is not a championship winning performance. You want to give Jimmy a pass and discredit Stafford just to prove a point that our O line was more terrible than their terrible O line in that game, than fine. Whatever.

Oh I'm definitely not giving Jimmy a pass. Haha.

Even under the circumstances he still had his chances. I just wanted to displell the myth that Stafford was under pressure and making game winning decisions under duress.

When you said, "I still think we could have won" I agree with you.

As to the OL, I can't speak to the splits for both teams that game but no doubt their OL only allowed 1 pressure down the stretch...like the Chiefs IIRC when they went on their run. That's 'probably' not a coincidence IMHO.

Both O lines played like crap. 2.4 ypc and 2.5 ypc. Both O lines gave up a lot of pressures. Its kind of difficult to get pressure on a QB though when he is throwing screens and other quick passes. A quick passing game can negate even the staunchest pass rushes in the NFL.

Jimmy had those opportunities as well and he botched on a couple of them down the stretch that would have kept drives alive. One to Hasty on a screen and one to Kittle sneaking out after faking a pass block. There were plays that the O line held up and receivers were open and yet we couldn't move the chains because the QB either didn't see the wide open receiver or refused to pull the trigger.

How many wide open receivers did stafford miss? I am willing to bet it wasn't as many as Jimmy.

I hear you. I don't know how much of a split there was on the OL, although willing to bet, half of TW, Tomlinson, Brunskill and Compton struggled more down the stretch when it became more predictable, Stafford > Jimmy so I'm perfectly fine with that take. I do know their big runs came late when it mattered even if in the end, they had similar YPC averages overall.

That said, I'd still like 1 example of a QB winning a Superbowl under the 42% pressure rate and <3ypc through the playoffs. I don't want to lose the collective chaos Jimmy had to face overall. I wouldn't wish that on any QB. Because you and I know, the more pressure = higher probability for losses. Even for the "elite QB's." That's been well documented.

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 libertyforever:

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
A shot? Of course. Every team that gets in the playoffs has a shot. We had a 'shot' with a 42% pressure rate and less than 3 ypc. Insane. We had a shot. Yes. But that's more of a testament to the rest of the roster isn't it? And it proved fatal.

Do you want to win one?

They were bad, but a one-legged Trent Williams and Tom "freaking" Compton will do that.

We had a bad luck in TW's injury. We would have a very reasonable change to win that game and head to the Superbowl if TW was completely healthy.

That was a good example of the luck factor in winning championships. It is ridiculously stupid for NC to make these definitive statement that we didn't win last season so we had zero chance (and the team wasn't good enough) from the very beginning.

We were able to generate a lot of pressure. We had 2 sacks, they had 0 sacks. We had 2.5 ypc and they had 2.4 ypc. We allowed their O to dink and dunk down the field. We held them to 2 fieldgoals on their last 2 real possessions. The defense made the correct decision in not being aggressive and end up giving up the big play. The offense got stuck in neutral after that long time consuming TD in the 3rd. The truth is the defense missed 1 real opportunity in the game and the offense missed at least 5.

Bingo. And when this started they were down. This idea Stafford made plays under pressure is a myth. He simply passed short on every play but one to go ahead and ice the game. And he STILL almost gave the game away.

That's not taking anything away from his year overall or his talent; just stating the facts in the end.

Stafford made the plays that were there to be made. You can argue all you want. He still executed the game plan. Jimmy missed a handful of opportunities that would have put the game away. Including short, pressure beater, passes (just like Stafford) in which he failed to execute. He also had missed wide open receivers on multiple plays. Both defenses dropped int's in the game.

If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The point is he made the plays that were there and the other QB did not. All of Jimmy's passes were short also. 3 of 9 for 30 yards, 2 delay of games and an interception is not a championship winning performance. You want to give Jimmy a pass and discredit Stafford just to prove a point that our O line was more terrible than their terrible O line in that game, than fine. Whatever.

Oh I'm definitely not giving Jimmy a pass. Haha.

Even under the circumstances he still had his chances. I just wanted to displell the myth that Stafford was under pressure and making game winning decisions under duress.

When you said, "I still think we could have won" I agree with you.

As to the OL, I can't speak to the splits for both teams that game but no doubt their OL only allowed 1 pressure down the stretch...like the Chiefs IIRC when they went on their run. That's 'probably' not a coincidence IMHO.

Both O lines played like crap. 2.4 ypc and 2.5 ypc. Both O lines gave up a lot of pressures. Its kind of difficult to get pressure on a QB though when he is throwing screens and other quick passes. A quick passing game can negate even the staunchest pass rushes in the NFL.

Jimmy had those opportunities as well and he botched on a couple of them down the stretch that would have kept drives alive. One to Hasty on a screen and one to Kittle sneaking out after faking a pass block. There were plays that the O line held up and receivers were open and yet we couldn't move the chains because the QB either didn't see the wide open receiver or refused to pull the trigger.

How many wide open receivers did stafford miss? I am willing to bet it wasn't as many as Jimmy.

I hear you. I don't know how much of a split there was on the OL, although willing to bet, half of TW, Tomlinson, Brunskill and Compton struggled more down the stretch when it became more predictable, Stafford > Jimmy so I'm perfectly fine with that take. I do know their big runs came late when it mattered even if in the end, they had similar YPC averages overall.

That said, I'd still like 1 example of a QB winning a Superbowl under the 42% pressure rate and <3ypc through the playoffs. I don't want to lose the collective chaos Jimmy had to face overall. I wouldn't wish that on any QB. Because you and I know, the more pressure = higher probability for losses. Even for the "elite QB's." That's been well documented.

Again, rewriting history. Their longest run from the end of the 3rd qtr (rams got the ball with 1:59 left in the 3rd qtr) through the end of the game was a 3 yard run on a 1st and 10 by Akers. You know when both O lines play like garbage it usually comes down to which QB makes the least amount of mistakes. That's been well documented.

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 libertyforever:

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
A shot? Of course. Every team that gets in the playoffs has a shot. We had a 'shot' with a 42% pressure rate and less than 3 ypc. Insane. We had a shot. Yes. But that's more of a testament to the rest of the roster isn't it? And it proved fatal.

Do you want to win one?

They were bad, but a one-legged Trent Williams and Tom "freaking" Compton will do that.

We had a bad luck in TW's injury. We would have a very reasonable change to win that game and head to the Superbowl if TW was completely healthy.

That was a good example of the luck factor in winning championships. It is ridiculously stupid for NC to make these definitive statement that we didn't win last season so we had zero chance (and the team wasn't good enough) from the very beginning.

We were able to generate a lot of pressure. We had 2 sacks, they had 0 sacks. We had 2.5 ypc and they had 2.4 ypc. We allowed their O to dink and dunk down the field. We held them to 2 fieldgoals on their last 2 real possessions. The defense made the correct decision in not being aggressive and end up giving up the big play. The offense got stuck in neutral after that long time consuming TD in the 3rd. The truth is the defense missed 1 real opportunity in the game and the offense missed at least 5.

Bingo. And when this started they were down. This idea Stafford made plays under pressure is a myth. He simply passed short on every play but one to go ahead and ice the game. And he STILL almost gave the game away.

That's not taking anything away from his year overall or his talent; just stating the facts in the end.

Stafford made the plays that were there to be made. You can argue all you want. He still executed the game plan. Jimmy missed a handful of opportunities that would have put the game away. Including short, pressure beater, passes (just like Stafford) in which he failed to execute. He also had missed wide open receivers on multiple plays. Both defenses dropped int's in the game.

If you want to say he made plays while under pressure earlier in the game, that's cool. My point was he was still down on the scoreboard at that point and what it took to win was not a heroic effort here. It was an Alex Smith-level effort. Literally. These were one read, basically, primary check downs minus one deeper play. That's it. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I think the real hero that game was McVay recognizing the concept to just take the short game because that's what we were giving him. Stafford stayed patient and stayed with that script. Very similar to how Brady beat Seattle's cover 3.

The point is he made the plays that were there and the other QB did not. All of Jimmy's passes were short also. 3 of 9 for 30 yards, 2 delay of games and an interception is not a championship winning performance. You want to give Jimmy a pass and discredit Stafford just to prove a point that our O line was more terrible than their terrible O line in that game, than fine. Whatever.

Oh I'm definitely not giving Jimmy a pass. Haha.

Even under the circumstances he still had his chances. I just wanted to displell the myth that Stafford was under pressure and making game winning decisions under duress.

When you said, "I still think we could have won" I agree with you.

As to the OL, I can't speak to the splits for both teams that game but no doubt their OL only allowed 1 pressure down the stretch...like the Chiefs IIRC when they went on their run. That's 'probably' not a coincidence IMHO.

Both O lines played like crap. 2.4 ypc and 2.5 ypc. Both O lines gave up a lot of pressures. Its kind of difficult to get pressure on a QB though when he is throwing screens and other quick passes. A quick passing game can negate even the staunchest pass rushes in the NFL.

Jimmy had those opportunities as well and he botched on a couple of them down the stretch that would have kept drives alive. One to Hasty on a screen and one to Kittle sneaking out after faking a pass block. There were plays that the O line held up and receivers were open and yet we couldn't move the chains because the QB either didn't see the wide open receiver or refused to pull the trigger.

How many wide open receivers did stafford miss? I am willing to bet it wasn't as many as Jimmy.

I hear you. I don't know how much of a split there was on the OL, although willing to bet, half of TW, Tomlinson, Brunskill and Compton struggled more down the stretch when it became more predictable, Stafford > Jimmy so I'm perfectly fine with that take. I do know their big runs came late when it mattered even if in the end, they had similar YPC averages overall.

That said, I'd still like 1 example of a QB winning a Superbowl under the 42% pressure rate and <3ypc through the playoffs. I don't want to lose the collective chaos Jimmy had to face overall. I wouldn't wish that on any QB. Because you and I know, the more pressure = higher probability for losses. Even for the "elite QB's." That's been well documented.

Again, rewriting history. Their longest run from the end of the 3rd qtr (rams got the ball with 1:59 left in the 3rd qtr) through the end of the game was a 3 yard run on a 1st and 10 by Akers. You know when both O lines play like garbage it usually comes down to which QB makes the least amount of mistakes. That's been well documented.

Really? My bad if true. I could have sworn when reviewing the game log they had a couple key runs towards the end.

Yes, when all things are equal, the better talent usually wins out (at QB). So why would you refute TW on one leg and Tomlinson, Brunskill and Compton in that game being < than their OL especially down the stretch? You already think their QB did. So why wouldn't you think their OL was better too when they were better coming in to the game and given your own research?

The truth of the matter is, Stafford + OL > Garoppolo + OL.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Really? My bad if true. I could have sworn when reviewing the game log they had a couple key runs towards the end.

Yes, when all things are equal, the better talent usually wins out (at QB). So why would to refute TW on one leg and Tomlinson, Brunskill and Compton in that game being far < than their OL especially down the stretch? You already think their QB did. So why wouldn't you think their OL was better too when they were better coming in to the game and given your own research?

The truth of the matter is, Stafford + OL > Garoppolo + OL.

Very true…nonetheless, Stafford did have an outstanding game. Likewise, our OL looked awful, as they were literally all beaten up physically…Trent being in worse shape than remainder of line. It would have been a great time to have had 10 OLs on team and a couple almost as good as starters.

Thus Kyle's one fault…treating the OL as a poor stepchild. I love the guy…just wish he would change his mind on the OL.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Really? My bad if true. I could have sworn when reviewing the game log they had a couple key runs towards the end.

Yes, when all things are equal, the better talent usually wins out (at QB). So why would to refute TW on one leg and Tomlinson, Brunskill and Compton in that game being far < than their OL especially down the stretch? You already think their QB did. So why wouldn't you think their OL was better too when they were better coming in to the game and given your own research?

The truth of the matter is, Stafford + OL > Garoppolo + OL.

Very true…nonetheless, Stafford did have an outstanding game. Likewise, our OL looked awful, as they were literally all beaten up physically…Trent being in worse shape than remainder of line. It would have been a great time to have had 10 OLs on team and a couple almost as good as starters.

Thus Kyle's one fault…treating the OL as a poor stepchild. I love the guy…just wish he would change his mind on the OL.

OK, this might be the best description yet! Good one doc.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Very true…nonetheless, Stafford did have an outstanding game. Likewise, our OL looked awful, as they were literally all beaten up physically…Trent being in worse shape than remainder of line. It would have been a great time to have had 10 OLs on team and a couple almost as good as starters.

Thus Kyle's one fault…treating the OL as a poor stepchild. I love the guy…just wish he would change his mind on the OL.

You have OL confused with the secondary.