SF scheme beating the Packers

[OrangeGravy]

Why do so many people get enamored with these outside zone / misdirection based offenses?

Here's the thing, Seattle built their O-line with maulers who can beat guys one on one. The 49ers built their O-line with athletic guys who can move in space and block as a unit. If Seattle tried to run those same plays, we'd see a lot more guys running free in the back field because guys like DJ Fluker can't block in space.

The upside to Seattle's philosophy is they can pretty much find success running the ball against anyone, and they tend to get more effective as the game goes on. This opens up the deep passing game and is one of the #1 reasons why they are among the lead leaders in explosive plays.

Shanahan's offense relies on confusing the defense in the running game and using play-action / misdirection off the run to get receivers space to run after the catch. The problem with his offense is when defenses stop the run and contain the screen passes, 90% of their playbook goes out the window.

I think people underestimate how much personnel affects what you can and can't run, even within the scheme you want to execute. Add in missing on players, specially O-line and you can end up with a very skinny playbook.

 

[Aw Mang]

How many times do you see Seattle run from the same formation and look... Shotgun with what looks like a read option that never uses the option. Very rarely do we see stretches, swings, tosses, or anything with a fullback. For a team that loves the run, it's really just sad how vanilla and uncreative they are in that facet.

Against Green Bay, ran straight up the middle, got stuffed for no or minimum gain. Rinse and repeat multiple times. Same results.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Against Green Bay, ran straight up the middle, got stuffed for no or minimum gain. Rinse and repeat multiple times. Same results.

It's absurd how many people around don't seem to realize how much harder this makes it to run when the defense knows exactly what you're doing almost every play.

 

[cymatica]

Why do so many people get enamored with these outside zone / misdirection based offenses?

Here's the thing, Seattle built their O-line with maulers who can beat guys one on one. The 49ers built their O-line with athletic guys who can move in space and block as a unit. If Seattle tried to run those same plays, we'd see a lot more guys running free in the back field because guys like DJ Fluker can't block in space.

The upside to Seattle's philosophy is they can pretty much find success running the ball against anyone, and they tend to get more effective as the game goes on. This opens up the deep passing game and is one of the #1 reasons why they are among the lead leaders in explosive plays.

Shanahan's offense relies on confusing the defense in the running game and using play-action / misdirection off the run to get receivers space to run after the catch. The problem with his offense is when defenses stop the run and contain the screen passes, 90% of their playbook goes out the window.

That's not really the criticism. It's running from the same look/formation to the same spot(up the middle usually) even if it isn't working. They did it over and over vs Greenbay and the Packers looked liked they knew exactly how to defend it and knew exactly what was coming. You can still use variety in the run game with a bigger slower oline, instead of running the same play from the same formation, up the middle for no gain, repeatedly

 

[bevellisthedevil]

Homer had 62 yards on 10 carries and 5 receptions for 30 yards against the 49ers in the last game of the season mostly due to outside runs and outlet passes from Wilson. So success breeds success right? Against the Eagles we ran Homer up the gut 11 times for 12 yards. Homer got 3 carries against the Packers and 2 catches for 27 yards.

If anyone could explain to me why you wouldn't have tried to run some plays to Homer to the outside to open up the running game that would be great.

It is almost as if the Seahawks are repelled by bouts of success or they will force plays that don't work until they find success.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Homer had 62 yards on 10 carries and 5 receptions for 30 yards against the 49ers in the last game of the season mostly due to outside runs and outlet passes from Wilson. So success breeds success right? Against the Eagles we ran Homer up the gut 11 times for 12 yards. Homer got 3 carries against the Packers and 2 catches for 27 yards.

If anyone could explain to me why you wouldn't have tried to run some plays to Homer to the outside to open up the running game that would be great.

It is almost as if the Seahawks are repelled by bouts of success or they will force plays that don't work until they find success.

I don't know. It's maddening.

 

[cymatica]

Homer had 62 yards on 10 carries and 5 receptions for 30 yards against the 49ers in the last game of the season mostly due to outside runs and outlet passes from Wilson. So success breeds success right? Against the Eagles we ran Homer up the gut 11 times for 12 yards. Homer got 3 carries against the Packers and 2 catches for 27 yards.

If anyone could explain to me why you wouldn't have tried to run some plays to Homer to the outside to open up the running game that would be great.

It is almost as if the Seahawks are repelled by bouts of success or they will force plays that don't work until they find success.

And with Joey Hunt at center.

 

[knownone]

Why do so many people get enamored with these outside zone / misdirection based offenses?

Here's the thing, Seattle built their O-line with maulers who can beat guys one on one. The 49ers built their O-line with athletic guys who can move in space and block as a unit. If Seattle tried to run those same plays, we'd see a lot more guys running free in the back field because guys like DJ Fluker can't block in space.

The upside to Seattle's philosophy is they can pretty much find success running the ball against anyone, and they tend to get more effective as the game goes on. This opens up the deep passing game and is one of the #1 reasons why they are among the lead leaders in explosive plays.

Shanahan's offense relies on confusing the defense in the running game and using play-action / misdirection off the run to get receivers space to run after the catch. The problem with his offense is when defenses stop the run and contain the screen passes, 90% of their playbook goes out the window.

That's not really the criticism. It's running from the same look/formation to the same spot(up the middle usually) even if it isn't working. They did it over and over vs Greenbay and the Packers looked liked they knew exactly how to defend it and knew exactly what was coming. You can still use variety in the run game with a bigger slower oline, instead of running the same play from the same formation, up the middle for no gain, repeatedly

The problem with games like GB, is that they tell us absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of the Hawks strategy. They ran the ball 15 times total in that game: 7 times to the right, 5 times up the middle and 3 times to the left. Yeah, they weren't effective and it looked predictable, but could that have anything to do with the guys in the backfield?

That's why I don't think this criticism holds up when you look at the season as a whole. Looking at their stats with Carson and Penny healthy will give you a pretty good indicator of how effective they are, and why they are so predictable with directional running.

They averaged 4.1 YPC up the middle, 5.0 YPC between the RG and C, 6.1 YPC between the RG and RT, and 5.6 YPC off tackle. That's where 63% of their rushing attempts went during the season. So if you came away from that GB game wondering why Seattle started their second series with 3 straight runs to the right side, there is your answer. They expected Marshawn to have a similar level of success as Penny and Carson against a weaker Packers run defense.

The whole point of the Hawks system is to make you think they are going to run it to the same spot. They want linebackers and safeties to bite on play fakes so that they can take shots deep down the field or exploit the seams with their tight end. In a similar sense, the whole point of Shanahan's system is to be as predictable as possible with their formation and pre-snap motioning, so that defenses can't anticipate what's about to happen.

What's weird to me is that Seattle's offense is better than the Niners in almost every meaningful metric. Yet here we are with people clamoring for more change. Think about it, if you swapped the Niners defense with our defense would the division have been competitive? probably not. The Niners offense probably falls to the middle of the pack and they'd struggle to win 8 games.

 

[brimsalabim]

The difference was that the nines owned the trenches. Their offensive line AND tight ends man handled greenbay’s DL. Our personnel is not capable of that type of performance!

 

[brimsalabim]

In the last decade no team has won more games than the Seahawks in the nfc. Roland like most who are a bit intellectually challenged has been distracted by the new and shiny.

You can flush playing percentages in the playoffs when it’s lose and go home!

 

[hoxrox]

Running the ball and great defense... I wonder where York and John Lynch got that idea from...

The difference is that they've hit on many high draft picks over the last decade, while we've squandered ours.

The reality is our roster really isn't that talented. Russ being brilliant and coaches (getting the most out of average players) oftentimes saved the day.

However I do believe with a healthy Carson and Penny, we win the GB game despite our lack of talent on defense.

 

[brimsalabim]

We haven’t made any high draft picks? We’ve missed on mid round ones.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

The 9ers are running (literally) the conservative offense that no longer works for SEA.

Jimmy G threw for a whole eight times but mostly put it in the RBs hands. One of the top RBs gets carted off, no problem, give it to the other top RB in there (Mostert) or the starter (Brieda) and if Coleman can't come back next week, just activate Wilson who's "only" gotten four TDs this year.

Meanwhile, set up your front 4 (or really 11) mini-LOB to stuff any run attempt, spot Uncle Sherm on spying Adams even outside his LCB spot, incent Erin to throw in his direction and game literally over.

They can do this because they have the personnel. They have the personnel largely from enduring multiple losing years without a franchise QB and a coach whose made the playoffs almost every year for the past decade. The fans are nowhere near accepting this level of pain...so how can we rebuild?

 

[Stanley]

Running the ball and great defense... I wonder where York and John Lynch got that idea from...

The difference is that they've hit on many high draft picks over the last decade, while we've squandered ours.

The reality is our roster really isn't that talented. Russ being brilliant and coaches (getting the most out of average players) oftentimes saved the day.

However I do believe with a healthy Carson and Penny, we win the GB game despite our lack of talent on defense.

Whoa whoa whoa. York got that idea from Jim Harbaugh.

The 49ers built their teams around running and defense BEFORE Seattle went on their run. You guys just did it better an d incredible secondary

 

[Stanley]

Why do so many people get enamored with these outside zone / misdirection based offenses?

Here's the thing, Seattle built their O-line with maulers who can beat guys one on one. The 49ers built their O-line with athletic guys who can move in space and block as a unit. If Seattle tried to run those same plays, we'd see a lot more guys running free in the back field because guys like DJ Fluker can't block in space.

The upside to Seattle's philosophy is they can pretty much find success running the ball against anyone, and they tend to get more effective as the game goes on. This opens up the deep passing game and is one of the #1 reasons why they are among the lead leaders in explosive plays.

Shanahan's offense relies on confusing the defense in the running game and using play-action / misdirection off the run to get receivers space to run after the catch. The problem with his offense is when defenses stop the run and contain the screen passes, 90% of their playbook goes out the window.

That's not really the criticism. It's running from the same look/formation to the same spot(up the middle usually) even if it isn't working. They did it over and over vs Greenbay and the Packers looked liked they knew exactly how to defend it and knew exactly what was coming. You can still use variety in the run game with a bigger slower oline, instead of running the same play from the same formation, up the middle for no gain, repeatedly

The problem with games like GB, is that they tell us absolutely nothing about the effectiveness of the Hawks strategy. They ran the ball 15 times total in that game: 7 times to the right, 5 times up the middle and 3 times to the left. Yeah, they weren't effective and it looked predictable, but could that have anything to do with the guys in the backfield?

That's why I don't think this criticism holds up when you look at the season as a whole. Looking at their stats with Carson and Penny healthy will give you a pretty good indicator of how effective they are, and why they are so predictable with directional running.

They averaged 4.1 YPC up the middle, 5.0 YPC between the RG and C, 6.1 YPC between the RG and RT, and 5.6 YPC off tackle. That's where 63% of their rushing attempts went during the season. So if you came away from that GB game wondering why Seattle started their second series with 3 straight runs to the right side, there is your answer. They expected Marshawn to have a similar level of success as Penny and Carson against a weaker Packers run defense.

The whole point of the Hawks system is to make you think they are going to run it to the same spot. They want linebackers and safeties to bite on play fakes so that they can take shots deep down the field or exploit the seams with their tight end. In a similar sense, the whole point of Shanahan's system is to be as predictable as possible with their formation and pre-snap motioning, so that defenses can't anticipate what's about to happen.

What's weird to me is that Seattle's offense is better than the Niners in almost every meaningful metric. Yet here we are with people clamoring for more change. Think about it, if you swapped the Niners defense with our defense would the division have been competitive? probably not. The Niners offense probably falls to the middle of the pack and they'd struggle to win 8 games.

Maybe, but I think Shanahans scheme is the biggest difference. I have no doubt that if the 9ers need to open it up, they’d be fine.

Moreover, Wilson ability to scramble and extend plays are his biggest asset as a QB. Second his arm chucking down the field on broken plays.

If Wilson did a hair more of that in the first half of games, Seattle might be going to the Super Bowl right now.

 

[RolandDeschain]

The 9ers are running (literally) the conservative offense that no longer works for SEA.

No. They aren't. Running a lot does not mean you are conservative.

 

[ivotuk]

How many times did Jimmy G throw the ball? How many touchdowns did he throw?

How healthy was SFs Oline and Running backs?

How healthy was SFs early 1st round Defensive line?

Actually, how healthy is SF compared to Seattle?

How anyone can compare our team to theirs, is beyond me. But go ahead, blame scheme when Russell Wilson got sacked 48 times this year. We didn't have enough of an OLine left to pass block , let alone run block for an old warhorse running back and a late round, undersized rookie.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

The game is won at the line of scrimmage. Football 101

 

[hoxrox]

Running the ball and great defense... I wonder where York and John Lynch got that idea from...

The difference is that they've hit on many high draft picks over the last decade, while we've squandered ours.

The reality is our roster really isn't that talented. Russ being brilliant and coaches (getting the most out of average players) oftentimes saved the day.

However I do believe with a healthy Carson and Penny, we win the GB game despite our lack of talent on defense.

Whoa whoa whoa. York got that idea from Jim Harbaugh.

The 49ers built their teams around running and defense BEFORE Seattle went on their run. You guys just did it better an d incredible secondary

Yeah you guys had success with Gore, Willis and Bowman. But I really don't remember any dominating 49ers Dlineman in those days. Smith was pretty good.

It's no secret that York coveted the Hawks LOB defense. And while the secondary gets most of the credit for that name... It was because we had HOGS on the Dline that could stop the run, and guys like Bennett and Avril who could rush the passer.

Sure Kam was monster. But that Dline was ELITE. Kept our LBers clean and made our legendary secondary look a lot better.

So now John Lynch comes along and drafts DLINE high. They hire Saleh. They acquire Sherman. They emulate the LOB defense but with added wrinkles.

Running and great defense is a proven formula for success. You just have to field the right personnel

When healthy, we had a great running game. We just had too many missing pieces on defense this year.

 

[kobebryant]

Seeing the way in which the 49ers won and how the Titans advanced to the conference championship, I really think with Carson, Penny and Dissly the Hawks would have really been in the fight. That blocking TE and a deep stable of runners is so important.