It's Official... We lost in ATL because...

FreshlySnipes

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
624
Reaction score
0
Location
Mercer Island/ Menlo Park
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.
 

Tezz

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I realized this like a punch in the face WHILE watching the game...
 

Frostbyte

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
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.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
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 :D (yes I know that is the point of the game)
 

warden

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
705
We lost because they made one more play then we did
 

Frostbyte

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
sorry....repost....hit the wrong button....nothing to see here....
 

BirdsCommaAngry

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
1,271
Reaction score
71
I'm fairly confident we lost because they had the higher score when time expired.
 

Hawkfan77

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
0
It's official...we've known this for over a week
 

Axx

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
2,091
Reaction score
0
Our Pass Rush was horrible, BUT 49ers stopped the running game. If there is one area we lost was because of our horrible running defense.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
Honestly, the 49ers have the best pass rush in the league, and ATL did a very good job of protecting Ryan in that game too. They didn't have many sacks, but it did look like there was a bit more pressure.
 

formido

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
547
Reaction score
0
Location
Ventura, CA
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.
 

Subzero717

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
10,005
Reaction score
14
Location
Is Everything
formido":1j844qoo said:
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?
 

SeAhAwKeR4life

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
7,696
Reaction score
1,507
Location
Port Townsend, WA
I knew this going in to the game. Wouldn't have had to watch a single game, just knowing Clemons was out and reading this board told me that. We didn't win though because Atlanta scored more points than we did :)
 

DHawk

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,098
Reaction score
1
Location
Phoenix, AZ
CALIHAWK1":277l9p7d said:
formido":277l9p7d said:
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?

On the Real Rob Report, Marshawn Lynch is referred to as just "Shawn".
 

Bobblehead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
812
OH.. I thought they scored more points then we did.
 

SeaWolv

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
484
mikeak":2z91zfb1 said:
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 :D (yes I know that is the point of the game)

Sort of the same thing though in a sense. We had no pass rush because Jones and Clemons were out but that also lead to our issues with run D as well. Irvin is a specialist not an every down pass rush/run stuffer like Clemons.

Weird thing is Ryan only had 250 yards against the Hawks but 396 against the Niners. However to your point they hung 167 yards on the Hawks running the ball but only 81 on the Niners.
 
Top