formido wrote:There are several reasons, any one of which had been different, we probably would have won:

1. If we'd had a strong base pass rush.
2. If Shawn hadn't fumbled. Pretty sure Atlanta's choke job starts half a game early if not for that.
3. If Clemons wasn't hurt. Unexpectedly allowing Atlanta so many rushing yards REALLY hurt.
4. If we hadn't blitzed. We didn't blitz all year and relied on our all world secondary. QBs hear a ticking in their ear whether there's a good rush or not. Ryan likes to get the ball out of his hands fast. We've done a great job all year with little pressure. After the first pick by Ryan on a blitz, he absolutely shredded us on blitzes, including the last drive. Even though it was a popular sentiment around here, I expected Seattle to ignore the pressure and stick to its guns. Unfortunately, they didn't, and it's one decision that cost the game.
5. If we'd played press man coverage on the final drive. We'd gotten Atlanta off the field on two previous critical drive but reverted to the "safe", but in reality most risky, soft zone coverage on the last drive. Brock Huard broke down the first play of that drive and mentioned that, as a QB, he always preferred to see the soft zone over the press man because it gave him lots of space to throw into.
6. This is the weakest point by far, in my opinion, but the drive to end the first half could have been handled better. It's hard to say a field goal at that point is critical, though, so I'm not sure the call to go for it was wrong. The play call was poor in my opinion. After seeing the defense, I think Wilson should have checked out of it or something. I think it was pretty awful to call it twice in a row. At the ends of seasons, at critical points against really good teams, it doesn't pay to be predictable, no matter how many times that play had been called in the past. As Atlanta later said, they'd seen that play in film. We had no momentum at that point, playing on the road, Atlanta's defense amped up...I feel like everyone here must have known what was coming and that it would be stopped. Hindsight is 20/20, yeah, yeah, but sometimes stuff really is too predictable. Atlanta was absolutely primed to stop that play. A counter for their aggression would have been the perfect call. Also, you should already be using non-voice signals to communicate plays by then. Nor do I like how casual those end of first half drives have been lately. Anyway, although I've devoted the most space to this point, it's the least important.

CALIHAWK1 wrote:

formido wrote:There are several reasons, any one of which had been different, we probably would have won:

1. If we'd had a strong base pass rush.
2. If Shawn hadn't fumbled. Pretty sure Atlanta's choke job starts half a game early if not for that.
3. If Clemons wasn't hurt. Unexpectedly allowing Atlanta so many rushing yards REALLY hurt.
4. If we hadn't blitzed. We didn't blitz all year and relied on our all world secondary. QBs hear a ticking in their ear whether there's a good rush or not. Ryan likes to get the ball out of his hands fast. We've done a great job all year with little pressure. After the first pick by Ryan on a blitz, he absolutely shredded us on blitzes, including the last drive. Even though it was a popular sentiment around here, I expected Seattle to ignore the pressure and stick to its guns. Unfortunately, they didn't, and it's one decision that cost the game.
5. If we'd played press man coverage on the final drive. We'd gotten Atlanta off the field on two previous critical drive but reverted to the "safe", but in reality most risky, soft zone coverage on the last drive. Brock Huard broke down the first play of that drive and mentioned that, as a QB, he always preferred to see the soft zone over the press man because it gave him lots of space to throw into.
6. This is the weakest point by far, in my opinion, but the drive to end the first half could have been handled better. It's hard to say a field goal at that point is critical, though, so I'm not sure the call to go for it was wrong. The play call was poor in my opinion. After seeing the defense, I think Wilson should have checked out of it or something. I think it was pretty awful to call it twice in a row. At the ends of seasons, at critical points against really good teams, it doesn't pay to be predictable, no matter how many times that play had been called in the past. As Atlanta later said, they'd seen that play in film. We had no momentum at that point, playing on the road, Atlanta's defense amped up...I feel like everyone here must have known what was coming and that it would be stopped. Hindsight is 20/20, yeah, yeah, but sometimes stuff really is too predictable. Atlanta was absolutely primed to stop that play. A counter for their aggression would have been the perfect call. Also, you should already be using non-voice signals to communicate plays by then. Nor do I like how casual those end of first half drives have been lately. Anyway, although I've devoted the most space to this point, it's the least important.

Who is Shawn?

mikeak wrote:Honestly I actually kind of disagree. To me it was the constant lack of stopping the run. Sure they passed the ball - we knew that. Fine better pass rush would have gotten the job done as well but heck every time they turned to the run it felt like they gashed us. Then us not putting any points on the board in the first half might also have had something minor to do with the game.

Look at yesterday's game ATL up 17-0 and going into halftime if I remember it was a 10pt game instead. That was enough to come back and win it for 49ers. Seahawks not putting up any scores in the first half did us in. We drove twice and should have had 10pts on the board in the first half

So put it together - we manage to score, stop the run and pass by Falcons and we dominate (yes I know that is the point of the game)

FlyingGreg wrote:I'm pretty sure that our entire fan base knew this watching the game.

FreshlySnipes wrote:After watching the niners beat the falcons last night I have concluded that we lost because we had no pass rush. We did a lot of the same things that the 49ers did defensively to stop Matt Ryan and company but the difference is the pass rush. Matt Ryan took some big shots in the game, especially late in the 4th quarter. We had zero sacks if I remember correctly. That is no way to beat a top level passing attack. We really need to find some pass rush in the draft.

kearly wrote:Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.

kearly wrote:Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.

kearly wrote:Pass rush was a huge problem for us, but it wasn't much better for SF. Keep in mind that Ryan threw for almost 150 more yards against SF than he did against us.

I think the main reason we lost is because we were down by 20 at halftime whereas the 49ers were only down by 10. Coming back from 20 is almost impossible, it's a damn miracle that we almost won. The 49ers got off to a bad start. The Seahawks got off to a disaster start.

In terms of the specific aspects that lost us the game, I think run defense (poor tackling) is right up there with pass rush. I think luck played a factor as well, it's pretty unusual to rack up 193 first half yards and score 0 points. Even the Falcon's players couldn't believe they led 20-0 at halftime. Seattle finished with 28 points on almost 500 yards of offense. In the past they'd often scored in the 40s and 50s when putting up that kind of yardage.

Seattle has problems to fix, but I think they were absolutely good enough to win it all this year. Really a shame that they underachieved so much in that Falcons game only to just barely lose.

Frostbyte wrote:This is why I think losing DT J. Jones to IR was just as big, if not bigger, a loss than losing DE C. Clemons to IR.

drdiags wrote:... how about the team cannot hold a lead? Is that better? Lot of excuses. 41 yds in 15 seconds with a trip to the NFCCG on the line.

mikeak wrote:Honestly I actually kind of disagree. To me it was the constant lack of stopping the run. Sure they passed the ball - we knew that. Fine better pass rush would have gotten the job done as well but heck every time they turned to the run it felt like they gashed us. Then us not putting any points on the board in the first half might also have had something minor to do with the game.

Look at yesterday's game ATL up 17-0 and going into halftime if I remember it was a 10pt game instead. That was enough to come back and win it for 49ers. Seahawks not putting up any scores in the first half did us in. We drove twice and should have had 10pts on the board in the first half

So put it together - we manage to score, stop the run and pass by Falcons and we dominate (yes I know that is the point of the game)

Bobblehead wrote:OH.. I thought they scored more points then we did.