There are 264 users in the forums
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Not post related but you and John Chapman last night were excellent. I can't wait to see you both again on your channel when you do another episode. Thank you for the content. I learn something new from you every time.
Awesome pitch...listening right now. First AB and now johnnydel? This is great!!
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Not post related but you and John Chapman last night were excellent. I can't wait to see you both again on your channel when you do another episode. Thank you for the content. I learn something new from you every time.
Awesome pitch...listening right now. First AB and now johnnydel? This is great!!
Here is a link if snyone else is interested.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Great plug!
I guess we can add QB's to this scheme-related injuries too. 9 QB injuries and 3 surgeries in 5 years. LOL
Let's hope that ends right now.
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
So what is it then? Here's your chance. You've said it was scheme. Then you said it was soft practices. Then you said it was poor player maintenance. Then you said it was the medical staff. So which is it?
Which topic? Full team injuries here? To position groups, specifically, here?
Lol you have different theories for different position groups?
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Great plug!
I guess we can add QB's to this scheme-related injuries too. 9 QB injuries and 3 surgeries in 5 years. LOL
Let's hope that ends right now.
Where's Spike Lee?
"It's gotta be the scheme"
Originally posted by NinerGM:
I have to slightly disagree here. He was absolutely more pass-oriented when he had Matt Ryan and that was one the big criticisms with their SB loss to the Pats; too much passing towards the end of the game and not enough time off the clock.
But I think I hear what you're saying YAC - pass-centric vs pass-oriented.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
So what is it then? Here's your chance. You've said it was scheme. Then you said it was soft practices. Then you said it was poor player maintenance. Then you said it was the medical staff. So which is it?
Which topic? Full team injuries here? To position groups, specifically, here?
Lol you have different theories for different position groups?
Not really. Whole team related to all other teams; FO/R&D player preferences (win the GTD $ and fliers and reliance on oft injured players), scheme preferences (e.g. smaller OL), Hockey S&C (soft tissue injuries), ultra light practices, standing around followed by a bunch of all-eyes-on-me 1on1's, etc.
I think the larger volume on the stated positions on offense are related to the volume of run blocking, reliance and complexity in order to execute that scheme and philosophy (run centric / low volume in PP so not as refined or talented there).
On defense, all gas, no brakes...all breaks (e.g. poor technique, lighter speed players, etc). Haha.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
That doesn't add up. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We went to the SB with the healthiest and the 27 healthiest teams and both outcomes were the same. Does being the healthiest team make it easier to get to the SB? Perhaps. But it doesn't guarantee anything.
Well nothing in a game where human intervention determines outcomes is guaranteed, however like the draft, you're banking on probability. It's more likely you'll make the SB when you're healthy just like higher picks in the draft are more talented and more likely to succeed at the the next level. It's not a guarantee, but you're not going to get many teams to be in favor of odds that work against them.
You all are missing my entire point. That chart that NC posted proves nothing. Anyone using it to make a point about why we haven't won a SB is spreading speculative bs. Especiallly when you don't take into account the health of our opponent in those games.
TBF, the AGL was noted in response to NinerBuff who was discussing thoughts on why we've gone through so many OL, TE, and RB's in this scheme. Did we practice too hard? I posted the AGL season end results so he could see the differences in Harbaugh/Fangio to Kyle+. You can see the Harbaugh era was our most healthy by far but the price was, as they got older, they all physically broke. Here, it's Caution City and relying on unorthodox numbers at positions (PS + Street FA's) to get through a season.
Obviously the healthy you are the better shot you've got as I showed you the correlation of team injuries to playoffs.
I agree with your original premise with elguapo and yes, you should look at the opponent too.
But that is who I was responding to. Elguapo was speculating that if we were healthier we would have 8 SB's rn. Disp was the other poster I was respinding to and they brought up Justin Smith and Aldon Smith playing less than 100% in the SB. I had to remind him that the ravens were not number 1 in health that season and that they were dealing with injuries with some of their top talents as well.
As far as the depth at certain position groups vs others such as having more RB's and TE's vs having more WR's is not unorthodox considering the type of ball that Shanahan wants to play. You said it yourself. McVay, LaFleur, and Shanahan all come from the same coaching tree but run different variations. The packers, under LaFleur, have been pass-centric from the get go. McVay became more pass-centric after they traded for Stafford. Kyle has never shown any signs of becoming pass-centric. So, no, I do not find it unorthodox to be deeper at positions that make sense on a philosophical level. It would be unorthodox if Shanahan kept 7 or 8 WR's.
By the way, Lynch said they never planned on keeping 5 RB's and 4 TE's. We are actually down to 4 RB's now and most likely won't keep 4 TE's either.
I have to slightly disagree here. He was absolutely more pass-oriented when he had Matt Ryan and that was one the big criticisms with their SB loss to the Pats; too much passing towards the end of the game and not enough time off the clock.
But I think I hear what you're saying YAC - pass-centric vs pass-oriented.
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
So what is it then? Here's your chance. You've said it was scheme. Then you said it was soft practices. Then you said it was poor player maintenance. Then you said it was the medical staff. So which is it?
Which topic? Full team injuries here? To position groups, specifically, here?
Lol you have different theories for different position groups?
Not really. Whole team related to all other teams; FO/R&D player preferences (win the GTD $ and fliers and reliance on oft injured players), scheme preferences (e.g. smaller OL), Hockey S&C (soft tissue injuries), ultra light practices, standing around followed by a bunch of all-eyes-on-me 1on1's, etc.
I think the larger volume on the stated positions on offense are related to the volume of run blocking, reliance and complexity in order to execute that scheme and philosophy (run centric / low volume in PP so not as refined or talented there).
On defense, all gas, no brakes...all breaks (e.g. poor technique, lighter speed players, etc). Haha.
Originally posted by jonnydel:
TBF, Atlanta was WAY more pass-oriented before Kyle got there. In 2016 Ryan threw the fewest passes he had since his sophmore season in 2009 and in 2015 and 16 they had about 100 more attempts rushing, give or take a few, than they had over the previous 4 seasons. Atlanta was built to throw the ball.
Also worth noting, in 2016 the Falcons were 26th in the league in pass attempts yet Ryan won MVP. , 12th in rush attempts.
2015 they were 12th in passing attempts and 16th in rushing attempts.
2015 they finished 8-8 and 2016 they were in the super bowl
in 2014 they were 3rd in passing attempts and 27th in rush attempts
2013 they were 3rd in passing attempts and 32nd in rush attempts
in 2012 they were 8th in passing attempts and 26th in rushing attempts.
Kyle took a team that for years was one of the most pass heavy teams in the league and made them one of the least while increasing a commitment to the run and there's no coincidence they went to the SB.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
That doesn't add up. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We went to the SB with the healthiest and the 27 healthiest teams and both outcomes were the same. Does being the healthiest team make it easier to get to the SB? Perhaps. But it doesn't guarantee anything.
Well nothing in a game where human intervention determines outcomes is guaranteed, however like the draft, you're banking on probability. It's more likely you'll make the SB when you're healthy just like higher picks in the draft are more talented and more likely to succeed at the the next level. It's not a guarantee, but you're not going to get many teams to be in favor of odds that work against them.
You all are missing my entire point. That chart that NC posted proves nothing. Anyone using it to make a point about why we haven't won a SB is spreading speculative bs. Especiallly when you don't take into account the health of our opponent in those games.
TBF, the AGL was noted in response to NinerBuff who was discussing thoughts on why we've gone through so many OL, TE, and RB's in this scheme. Did we practice too hard? I posted the AGL season end results so he could see the differences in Harbaugh/Fangio to Kyle+. You can see the Harbaugh era was our most healthy by far but the price was, as they got older, they all physically broke. Here, it's Caution City and relying on unorthodox numbers at positions (PS + Street FA's) to get through a season.
Obviously the healthy you are the better shot you've got as I showed you the correlation of team injuries to playoffs.
I agree with your original premise with elguapo and yes, you should look at the opponent too.
But that is who I was responding to. Elguapo was speculating that if we were healthier we would have 8 SB's rn. Disp was the other poster I was respinding to and they brought up Justin Smith and Aldon Smith playing less than 100% in the SB. I had to remind him that the ravens were not number 1 in health that season and that they were dealing with injuries with some of their top talents as well.
As far as the depth at certain position groups vs others such as having more RB's and TE's vs having more WR's is not unorthodox considering the type of ball that Shanahan wants to play. You said it yourself. McVay, LaFleur, and Shanahan all come from the same coaching tree but run different variations. The packers, under LaFleur, have been pass-centric from the get go. McVay became more pass-centric after they traded for Stafford. Kyle has never shown any signs of becoming pass-centric. So, no, I do not find it unorthodox to be deeper at positions that make sense on a philosophical level. It would be unorthodox if Shanahan kept 7 or 8 WR's.
By the way, Lynch said they never planned on keeping 5 RB's and 4 TE's. We are actually down to 4 RB's now and most likely won't keep 4 TE's either.
I have to slightly disagree here. He was absolutely more pass-oriented when he had Matt Ryan and that was one the big criticisms with their SB loss to the Pats; too much passing towards the end of the game and not enough time off the clock.
But I think I hear what you're saying YAC - pass-centric vs pass-oriented.
TBF, Atlanta was WAY more pass-oriented before Kyle got there. In 2016 Ryan threw the fewest passes he had since his sophmore season in 2009 and in 2015 and 16 they had about 100 more attempts rushing, give or take a few, than they had over the previous 4 seasons. Atlanta was built to throw the ball.
Also worth noting, in 2016 the Falcons were 26th in the league in pass attempts yet Ryan won MVP. , 12th in rush attempts.
2015 they were 12th in passing attempts and 16th in rushing attempts.
2015 they finished 8-8 and 2016 they were in the super bowl
in 2014 they were 3rd in passing attempts and 27th in rush attempts
2013 they were 3rd in passing attempts and 32nd in rush attempts
in 2012 they were 8th in passing attempts and 26th in rushing attempts.
Kyle took a team that for years was one of the most pass heavy teams in the league and made them one of the least while increasing a commitment to the run and there's no coincidence they went to the SB.
Agreed jonnydel but I'd argue adding more of that run made that offense scary balanced and at times Kyle could switch strategies mid-game and attack with a pass-focused attack if opponents loaded up to stop the run. We've not seen that yet here in San Francisco, cause as NC said, Kyle hasn't inherited (or developed) a true superior passer.
Originally posted by jonnydel:
We did in several games down the stretch of the season in 2019. Remember Jimmy had multiple 300 yard games and a 400 yard game.
I'm not dating Jimmy is 16 Ryan but we also didn't have Julio freaking Jones or the pass pro of that ATL OL.
I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we think Trey is gonna be a superior passer year 1. While I like a lot from the kid, I think those expectations are lofty. If we win this year, it's gonna be from a strong run game a defense. Kyle has talked about this, being a good enough team to help weather through Treys growing pains.
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:Don't think the rest of Kyle's coaching tree agrees with having such small OL, RBs, and WRs
Originally posted by NCommand:
No idea what random said but whatever team you're talking about, I'm sure, hasn't had the injury history this OL has had over the past 6 years.
Even Kyle has recognized it carrying 5-6 backs, 4 TE's and now, 10 OL.
If you can't see that this scheme eats through this group, you're blind.
So shouldn't the scheme eat through the Packers and Rams too? Will it eat through the Dolphins this year? Is it already happening with the Jets because Becton got hurt?
Once they activate Verrett I don't see 4 TE's on roster anymore. Already don't have 5 backs.
Originally posted by All22:
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:Don't think the rest of Kyle's coaching tree agrees with having such small OL, RBs, and WRs
Originally posted by NCommand:
No idea what random said but whatever team you're talking about, I'm sure, hasn't had the injury history this OL has had over the past 6 years.
Even Kyle has recognized it carrying 5-6 backs, 4 TE's and now, 10 OL.
If you can't see that this scheme eats through this group, you're blind.
So shouldn't the scheme eat through the Packers and Rams too? Will it eat through the Dolphins this year? Is it already happening with the Jets because Becton got hurt?
Once they activate Verrett I don't see 4 TE's on roster anymore. Already don't have 5 backs.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Bingo. They also run more pass centric versions. QB centric versions. Kyle here: "Trey won't make or break the season." Same scheme...very different philosophy within it.
