Bevell Sucks.

[AbsolutNET]

In the first San Francisco game, Russell had a similar line and we leaned on our running game and defense for the win.

Can anyone explain to me why we would pass more than we did in the wind against the #2 pass defense when you are winning and have the #1 defense at home?

No one has adequately explained to me why we needed a gameplan that was any less conservative.

I think you're missing the point of a lot of our concerns. No one is saying we need to pass more and abandon the run. We are just quite concerned with the quality of our passing game when we do face a passing situation. My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

 

[DavidSeven]

My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

Why would need to rely on the passing game this Sunday when the team that has RUSHED for more yards has won every single match-up between these two? Russell showed last Sunday that he can make the big onions pass to win us the game, if necessary. This game is going to be won first in the trenches. It will only be sealed in the passing game, and Russell can do that.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

In the first San Francisco game, Russell had a similar line and we leaned on our running game and defense for the win.

Can anyone explain to me why we would pass more than we did in the wind against the #2 pass defense when you are winning and have the #1 defense at home?

No one has adequately explained to me why we needed a gameplan that was any less conservative.

I think you're missing the point of a lot of our concerns. No one is saying we need to pass more and abandon the run. We are just quite concerned with the quality of our passing game when we do face a passing situation. My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

We had the #8 passing offense on a per play basis and made the one play in the fourth quarter we needed to.

Otherwise, based on what the team's strengths are, why would you ever think we would NEED to rely on the passing game? We need to rely on our defense and running game and make San Francisco rely on their passing game. If the Saints couldn't, I'll take my chances with San Fran. The winner of this game will be the team who can run the ball. Period.

Besides, contrary to popular belief, New Orleans had a better pass defense than San Fran.

The passing game is not to be relied on except to shake it up as a change of pace to open up the run by taking deep shots. The team is built in such a way that of we don't throw picks and make s couple deep throws, we win.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

Why would need to rely on the passing game this Sunday when the team that has RUSHED for more yards has won every single match-up between these two? Russell showed last Sunday that he can make the big onions pass to win us the game, if necessary. This game is going to be won first in the trenches. It will only be sealed in the passing game, and Russell can do that.

For sure, but it'll be interesting to see how SF plays defense Sunday. Are they going to do what they've done before, which is kinda spy Russell, or are they going to go the Rams approach and slow edge rush to keep Russell in the pocket?

I'm leaning towards the latter. SF did a great job yesterday of bottling up Cam, so I'd look for that same approach with Russell. Make no mistakes he WILL have to make 3-4 passes downfield to move the ball. I can't see the Niners allowing Lynch to do what he did to the Saints.

IMO this is Russell's game to win or lose.

 

[RolandDeschain]

We had the #8 passing offense on a per play basis and made the one play in the fourth quarter we needed to.

Largely due to efficiency caused by our running game. If you shutdown our running game, we do not have a passing game to rely upon. Period. Fact. End of story. That is Absolut's concern. We can get away with passing at will against mediocre defenses, but guess what, the 49ers defense is far from mediocre.

Otherwise, based on what the team's strengths are, why would you ever think we would NEED to rely on the passing game?

Because short of having the most skilled set of personnel at every position on your offense, you need to be able to change, adjust, and vary your offense depending on what defenses are doing to you.

SMH.

 

[SonicHawk]

Our rushing game isn't even that great.

How many rushing plays of 0 yards can we have in a game? If it isn't for those 6/7 yard gains on 2nd and 10 and a random 20/30 yarder this rushing game is awful as well.

I'm tired of people looking at stats like 140 yards for Lynch and assuming that's a good day when the bulk of his bigger runs came on second and long and not on 3rd down.

The teams strength is it's defense. I hope to god we rush for over a 100 yards or else we wouldn't move the ball AT ALL.

 

[Blitzer88]

In the first San Francisco game, Russell had a similar line and we leaned on our running game and defense for the win.

Can anyone explain to me why we would pass more than we did in the wind against the #2 pass defense when you are winning and have the #1 defense at home?

No one has adequately explained to me why we needed a gameplan that was any less conservative.

I think you're missing the point of a lot of our concerns. No one is saying we need to pass more and abandon the run. We are just quite concerned with the quality of our passing game when we do face a passing situation. My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

Well said Absolute. We don't necessarily need more passing attempts or yards, we just have to become more efficient when we do decide to throw the ball. And lately, Russell has be very inefficient with his chances.

 

[SonicHawk]

Yes, we need more passing.

It's to easy to gameplan defensively against the Hawks.

Your DEs need to play contain and you blitz up the middle. That will stop the Hawks on the majority of plays.

 

[Ozzy]

Absolute I somewhat agree with you. We probably have to do better in passing situations. I just think from what we saw from Harvin he makes that a much easier task when he's in the game. I hated seeing us running so much on second and 9. Would rather pass there and set up more third and short situations. I think a lot of that has to do with how conservative we called the game. I guess bottom line is I'm optimistic if the game flow dicated we pass more efficiently we would. We've been playing with leads and Pete and staff get conservative.

 

[plyka]

My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

Why would need to rely on the passing game this Sunday when the team that has RUSHED for more yards has won every single match-up between these two? Russell showed last Sunday that he can make the big onions pass to win us the game, if necessary. This game is going to be won first in the trenches. It will only be sealed in the passing game, and Russell can do that.

Just because you found a stat in a couple of games that the team with most rush yards won does not mean it has predictive value nor does it mean it was the only factor. I'm sure out of the possible facts there are in a couple games I could find something that says the team with the most number of yellow shoes won the game. It doesn't mean much. Of course rush yards mean a heck of a lot more, but it's obviously not everything.

 

[DavidSeven]

My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

Why would need to rely on the passing game this Sunday when the team that has RUSHED for more yards has won every single match-up between these two? Russell showed last Sunday that he can make the big onions pass to win us the game, if necessary. This game is going to be won first in the trenches. It will only be sealed in the passing game, and Russell can do that.

Just because you found a stat in a couple of games that the team with most rush yards won does not mean it has predictive value nor does it mean it was the only factor. I'm sure out of the possible facts there are in a couple games I could find something that says the team with the most number of yellow shoes won the game. It doesn't mean much. Of course rush yards mean a heck of a lot more, but it's obviously not everything.

Yes, a 100% correlation over six games tying rushing yards to victories between two philosophically similar teams is the same as finding a random correlation in color of shoes. Thank you for the helpful analogy.

Pete Carroll is all about predictive statistics. That is why he emphasizes rushing, turnover ratio and toxic difference. Everything he does is based on the predictive value it has.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

We had the #8 passing offense on a per play basis and made the one play in the fourth quarter we needed to.

Largely due to efficiency caused by our running game. If you shutdown our running game, we do not have a passing game to rely upon. Period. Fact. End of story. That is Absolut's concern. We can get away with passing at will against mediocre defenses, but guess what, the 49ers defense is far from mediocre.

Otherwise, based on what the team's strengths are, why would you ever think we would NEED to rely on the passing game?

Because short of having the most skilled set of personnel at every position on your offense, you need to be able to change, adjust, and vary your offense depending on what defenses are doing to you.

SMH.

And why do you think Knowshon Moreno had a monster year? Because Denver is dynamic and can change to become a running team on a dime. Not a chance. Their passing game opens up the run. But what happened when they wanted to rely on their run game down the stretch against San Diego, it backed them up and they went back to their strength - the passing game.

Keep in mind, most teams in this league can't do anything right on offense, let alone be a top rushing team, and only 1-3 per year, at most, can do what you are asking. New Orleans couldn't and they are a historically good offense. They tried to turn into a running team and got punched in the mouth to the tune of 16-0 - and it could have been much worse. Think about that, everyone is bitching about Bevell and Sean Payton...I repeat Sean Payton...couldn't do what you are asking. You just can't scheme to become a tough smash mouth football team in the same way we can't just scheme to become Denver.

 

[hawkfan68]

I'm not too worried about the passing game. They have practices this week to work on that. I believe a couple of the 49ers top CBs are injured too - Carlos Rogers and Eric Wright. Not sure if they are planning on Sunday but Rogers didn't play yesterday. The Seahawks have more threats at WR than the Panthers do. I see a better passing performance in the cards next week for the Seahawks.

 

[themunn]

We had the #8 passing offense on a per play basis and made the one play in the fourth quarter we needed to.

Largely due to efficiency caused by our running game. If you shutdown our running game, we do not have a passing game to rely upon. Period. Fact. End of story. That is Absolut's concern. We can get away with passing at will against mediocre defenses, but guess what, the 49ers defense is far from mediocre.

How many 100 yard rushing games did Lynch have this year? Wilson accounted for nearly a quarter of our rushing yards, but much of his rushing yards come from the passing game opening up space to run, NOT the running game.
Every time a team sold out to stop the run Wilson punished them, the teams that were the most effective against us were the ones that have the ability to stop the run AND the pass (funnily enough).

New Orleans sold out to stop the run in game 1 and we shredded them through the air
In game 2 they tried to play both and got shredded in the run game, then sold out to stop the run when it became apparent that we weren't going to try and beat them through the air even if they did so. The fact is, in better weather we probably WOULD have shredded them through the air again, but stuck with the run because we had the lead and full control of the game.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

My biggest concern is that we need to rely on our passing game to go to the Super Bowl on Sunday and don't have a system worth a damn.

Why would need to rely on the passing game this Sunday when the team that has RUSHED for more yards has won every single match-up between these two? Russell showed last Sunday that he can make the big onions pass to win us the game, if necessary. This game is going to be won first in the trenches. It will only be sealed in the passing game, and Russell can do that.

Just because you found a stat in a couple of games that the team with most rush yards won does not mean it has predictive value nor does it mean it was the only factor. I'm sure out of the possible facts there are in a couple games I could find something that says the team with the most number of yellow shoes won the game. It doesn't mean much. Of course rush yards mean a heck of a lot more, but it's obviously not everything.

A trend that is as strong as 8-0 would definitely reach statistical significance - in other words - rushing yards would be correlated with winning between these two teams. Moreover, unlike yellow shoes, it seems very plausible that this is by design and therefore a strong causative argument could be made for this particular stat.

In conclusion, most certainly we would need to establish the run if are going to win Sunday.