49ers vs Seahawks Game Analysis and our Offensive woes

[Ad Hawk]

Would you agree with edogg23 that our rushing game is a little below average?

That is mostly what I was addressing as I find that statement absurd.

In terms of Lynch's yards, I'm not seeing the same production that we got from him earlier in the season, but then again, the last two teams have great run-D. If you factor in RW's rushing yards and yards/carry, we're not top operating at the top of the league, but we're better than average. I'd just like to see us getting consistent 100-yard games from Lynch considering how much we want to run him.

 

[Marvin49]

OK...well feel free to ignore (not that you need my permission to ignore me) but I think in particular with #1 you are misunderstanding what those stats are telling you. Its the classic mistake of thinking those numbers exist in a vacuum and don't have an effect on the other.

The Seahawks on offense are built very similarly to the 49ers in that they rely HEAVILY on the run game and it is that great run game that drives the passing game. They may have only averaged 3.7 yards per rush, but its the fact that the 49ers had to respect that run game that those open passing lanes were there to be that successful. If you pass much more often then the LBs start drifting back instead of forward.

Kap averaged 8.3 yards per attempt last year. That was the highest in the NFL. That was better than Manning and Rodgers. Is it because he's better than Manning and Rodgers? Clearly not. Its because teams were forced to contend with that running attack and it opened up holes down the field.

How often do you see Wilson hit guys in stride with nobody within 4 yards of him? Just look at the Willson TD. That stuff counts as a part of the passing game, but it is created by the run game.

 

[Chapow]

Would you agree with edogg23 that our rushing game is a little below average?

That is mostly what I was addressing as I find that statement absurd.

In terms of Lynch's yards, I'm not seeing the same production that we got from him earlier in the season, but then again, the last two teams have great run-D. If you factor in RW's rushing yards and yards/carry, we're not top operating at the top of the league, but we're better than average. I'd just like to see us getting consistent 100-yard games from Lynch considering how much we want to run him.

I don't know what to tell ya? unno:

We are top 10 in the league in every statistical rushing category. Don't like rushing yards per game (we are 3rd)?
How about yards per carry? We are 7th.

And I'd like to see Lynch get 100 yds a game too, but that's not really very realistic and is actually pretty rare. There is exactly 1 player in the NFL this year that is averaging 100 or more rushing yards a game and his average just got bumped way up by a 217 yard day. Before this week there were no players averaging 100 yards a game and only 1 averaging more than 90 yards a game. Marshawn is 5th in the league at 80 yards per game. He had 72 yards and a TD against SF on Sunday.

I don't see how our rushing game is not operating near the top of the league. unno:

 

[SouthSoundHawk]

OK...well feel free to ignore (not that you need my permission to ignore me) but I think in particular with #1 you are misunderstanding what those stats are telling you. Its the classic mistake of thinking those numbers exist in a vacuum and don't have an effect on the other.

The Seahawks on offense are built very similarly to the 49ers in that they rely HEAVILY on the run game and it is that great run game that drives the passing game. They may have only averaged 3.7 yards per rush, but its the fact that the 49ers had to respect that run game that those open passing lanes were there to be that successful. If you pass much more often then the LBs start drifting back instead of forward.

Kap averaged 8.3 yards per attempt last year. That was the highest in the NFL. That was better than Manning and Rodgers. Is it because he's better than Manning and Rodgers? Clearly not. Its because teams were forced to contend with that running attack and it opened up holes down the field.

How often do you see Wilson hit guys in stride with nobody within 4 yards of him? Just look at the Willson TD. That stuff counts as a part of the passing game, but it is created by the run game.

Are we being schooled about the nuances of the play action pass? I think a lot of us (if not all of us) know how play action works, just saying.

 

[loafoftatupu]

I just can't see equating a tight game with 2 very good defenses, in SF as having offensive woes. SF has a defense just as nasty as ours, especially with the game in SF.

It is like they were at practice against themselves except the game counted.

That game in SF is the toughest game every year. Which is why I expected them to lose, but every year under Carroll they have improved in that game and as a team overall. Like Clockwork, except for the 2011 TJack game, the Hawks and Niners have split to the home team. This home split thing might be around for a while.

 

[OrFan]

So, here is the real question. Why would you tok a dub, when you could tok a doob?

 

[Tokadub]

There's a lot of great posts here so that's always nice to see, but I'm not sure which ones to respond to specifically.

One interesting stat page I just looked at was for "Team Net Turnover Points". How many takeaway points you have (scoring after getting an interception or fumble) and how many Giveaway points you have.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats ... tics/2013/

So the Seahawks are doing very well in this category with 92 takeaway points which is 3rd in the league. So we are averaging about 7 points per game off of our opponents turnovers.

We also are ranked #5 in giveaway points with 33 points this entire season.

Our net turnover points when you take both these statistics together is +59 points this season, 4th best in the league.

And if it makes anyone feel any better the Giants are the worst in the league at -69, which kind of explains why they have struggled so much this year.

But although this is a very good indication of how good our defense is, and our offensive ability to capitalize off our defense, it's still kind of an unpredictable advantage to me on a game by game basis.

That's why I think it's also important to consider our yards per game as well. I don't think we should ever be counting on winning the turnover battle as our key to victory. We should be prepared to outscore the opponent under any conditions. Sometimes those conditions require a lot of yards and we are pretty average in that regard.

I also agree with the other poster who said that statistically the better teams chances to win increase the more plays there are in the game.

So sometimes trying to slow everything down can come back to bite us. So I disagree with the poster who said that the defense giving up the Gore run is the reason we lost the game. Technically that may be true, but if our gameplan is that we have to count on our defense not giving up one big play the entire game to win? Not a wise plan, we should plan to give ourselves enough of a lead that we can survive that kind of thing. With our play calling last week I think we really deserved to lose, it just was very timid and ineffective offensive calls.

Like others have said our play calling at home seems to be much more explosive, I really think we would have destroyed the 49ers with that stuff even at their own house but I guess we'll never know.

I guess to me it just comes down to I'd rather take a little bit of a gamble with Russell's capability to lead us to victory than play it safe in such a close competitive game. We should never be trying to force the running game when it's not working when we have such an incredible QB.

Another poster mentioned that our running game is what causes the passing game to be effective forcing the defense to stack up the line. But that works both ways, if they are backing off to defend our passing game then it opens up all kinds of super easy running plays for Wilson, and Lynch or short throws for Tate and Harvin.

So I think the whole key here is finding the right balance, calling plays at the right time, and being unpredictable. This thread was not meant to throw the running game under the bus. We just need to utilize both our run and passing game to it's full potential CONSISTENTLY. Bevell just seems very inconsistent and I do disagree with his calls on a regular basis.

I just really don't want to see another loss where I feel like we didn't give ourselves a chance to take over the game. We shouldn't count on our defense to win every game for us. Our offense needs to be able to give us a big enough lead so when those bad plays inevitably happen we won't lose from just one play (gore rush) or one drive (falcons in playoffs last year marching down field super easy).

 

[Marvin49]

OK...well feel free to ignore (not that you need my permission to ignore me) but I think in particular with #1 you are misunderstanding what those stats are telling you. Its the classic mistake of thinking those numbers exist in a vacuum and don't have an effect on the other.

The Seahawks on offense are built very similarly to the 49ers in that they rely HEAVILY on the run game and it is that great run game that drives the passing game. They may have only averaged 3.7 yards per rush, but its the fact that the 49ers had to respect that run game that those open passing lanes were there to be that successful. If you pass much more often then the LBs start drifting back instead of forward.

Kap averaged 8.3 yards per attempt last year. That was the highest in the NFL. That was better than Manning and Rodgers. Is it because he's better than Manning and Rodgers? Clearly not. Its because teams were forced to contend with that running attack and it opened up holes down the field.

How often do you see Wilson hit guys in stride with nobody within 4 yards of him? Just look at the Willson TD. That stuff counts as a part of the passing game, but it is created by the run game.

Are we being schooled about the nuances of the play action pass? I think a lot of us (if not all of us) know how play action works, just saying.

I'm sure you do, but by his comments it seems kinda clear that the OP doesn't.

 

[hawk45]

I'm not saying the 49ers aren't a good defense, just that we could have called better plays and most likely won the game pretty easy.
It almost seems like we are trying to beat the 49ers at their own strength which is the run game (stubborn play calling if that's why we do it).

Were you sticking up for Bevell when everybody here was criticizing him for going away from the run too early?

Our offense did seem more conservative than usual, but remember that 1) a couple of our big plays were called back and 2) Pete Carroll is the main in charge when it comes to the overall risk profile on this team. If we are conservative on a possession that is 100% his decision. He has such faith in his defense that we are going to lose games like this every now and then when our defense fails to make the last stop.

If I was going to question anything, it would mostly be to wonder why we looked so aggressive vs. the Saints at home on offense and conservative vs. the 49ers on the road. Perhaps some combination of Carroll having more respect for the 49er defense, and assuming offensive difficulties playing on the road vs. an NFC West opponent who has lots of familiarity with our offense.

The one difference here I think is that in past games where Bevell was taking heat for going away from the run game, that was when our OL was in tatters and the only thing the line was effective at was run-blocking.

Vs. the run-stuffing Niners with our line healthy, the case for going away from the run after a half or so of futility is stronger.

In both situations, it's the inflexibility of the play calling when the initial game plan is not working which is the root criticism (well to me at any rate).

As for whether it's Bevell or Pete, that's a good point. Perhaps it would be more fair to offer criticism of the play calling period, rather than Bevell himself.

In my particular case, I have zero problems with the lack of read-option plays exposing Wilson to the Niner LBs in a regular season game. My issue is just that we stayed with the run a bit too much. After having some days to digest the game, I find I have less of a problem with it, for the reasons you mention. Respect for Niner defense, road game vs a division foe, and the fact that in such games a conservative strategy of keeping it close and making a pivotal play in the 4th quarter is often a good one.

 

[edogg23]

Perhaps saying our running game is a little below average is a bit of a reach. I was referring to averages, not total yards a game. What I was trying to say is that we have a qb in Wilson that many people feel is an MVP quality qb in only his second year. You run to set up the pass or pass to set up the run. Sometimes you may want to pass a little more to open up the run game. Especially when you are feeling like you are running into a brick wall like in the SF game.

 

[The Radish]

I know you're a new poster and this is a fine write up. But we have to put a limit on past weeks talk.

Its Giants talk time now. I'm moving your post to the NFL forum with a shadow so you will get double coverage for a while.

:les:

 

[Hasselbeck]

The 49ers defense, first of all, is a big reason we weren't clicking on all cylinders on offense. They have been lights out of late.

Secondly, it's hard to blame Bevell when a lot of the drives that would have worked were derailed by a penalty.