| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
foreveryoung94
Joined: 29 Nov 2008
Posts: 882
Location: roseville ca
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| UofMfan909 wrote: | | foreveryoung94 wrote: | | UofMfan909 wrote: | 27 points against the Dolphins was the third most they've allowed all year. More than the best offense in the league (New England) put up just last week, and more than another top ten offense (Cincinnati) put up earlier this year. I'm not going to go through and see how many points each team got off of turnovers, but it's an absolute fact that we put up 27 points directly as a result of the offense, without forcing a single turnover on defense.
I'll agree it was ugly at the beginning, but the results kind of speak for themselves.
Oh, and considering that both of the teams who scored more than us (Houston and Tennessee) both had three interceptions against Tannehill, plus one fumble recovery, (also a defensive touchdown for Tennessee)... yeah, I think it's pretty impressive. |
Yeah except more than half of those came as a result of a turn over ( special teams turnovers are just as big ad defensive ones) and a big play that was caused by end of game desperation. If anyone watched this game and think that offense as it is is good enough to win in the next 2 weeks let alone the Superbowl. Ill just calmly decline to discuss football with them anymore. |
I like how you cite a "big play" and then try and use it as an argument against the offense. 
Fact: we forced one turnover against the Dolphins today that led to a score.
Fact: we had the third highest point production total of any team against Miami today.
Fact: the two teams who scored more than us against the Dolphins each had four turnovers.
Tennessee scored 37 points against Miami. 7 came on an interception touchdown. 13 came on drives that started in Miami territory. 20 without the help of the defense. Houston scored 24 points on drives that started in Miami territory, or a whopping SIX points without massive help from the defense.
Looking at the three highest scoring outputs (because I'm not going through all 13 of their games), it's pretty easy to see that we scored the most against Miami with the least help from field position thanks to the defense or special teams. Your argument is working against you. |
please please stop comparing box scores they are worthless in this situation. yes more than half of our offensive production came on 1 play in which the phins used what amounts to the hail mary defense in desperation at the end of the game, and a 10 yard 2 play drive. they scored 13 points otherwise im going to complain about our offense it sucked today and no box score searching is going to prove to me other wise. In it self thats nbd but this is three straight weeks of the same thing really 15 quaters of really poor offense
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
foreveryoung94
Joined: 29 Nov 2008
Posts: 882
Location: roseville ca
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| UofMfan909 wrote: | | foreveryoung94 wrote: | | UofMfan909 wrote: | 27 points against the Dolphins was the third most they've allowed all year. More than the best offense in the league (New England) put up just last week, and more than another top ten offense (Cincinnati) put up earlier this year. I'm not going to go through and see how many points each team got off of turnovers, but it's an absolute fact that we put up 27 points directly as a result of the offense, without forcing a single turnover on defense.
I'll agree it was ugly at the beginning, but the results kind of speak for themselves.
Oh, and considering that both of the teams who scored more than us (Houston and Tennessee) both had three interceptions against Tannehill, plus one fumble recovery, (also a defensive touchdown for Tennessee)... yeah, I think it's pretty impressive. |
Yeah except more than half of those came as a result of a turn over ( special teams turnovers are just as big ad defensive ones) and a big play that was caused by end of game desperation. If anyone watched this game and think that offense as it is is good enough to win in the next 2 weeks let alone the Superbowl. Ill just calmly decline to discuss football with them anymore. |
I like how you cite a "big play" and then try and use it as an argument against the offense.
Fact: we forced one turnover against the Dolphins today that led to a score.
Fact: we had the third highest point production total of any team against Miami today.
Fact: the two teams who scored more than us against the Dolphins each had four turnovers.
Tennessee scored 37 points against Miami. 7 came on an interception touchdown. 13 came on drives that started in Miami territory. 20 without the help of the defense. Houston scored 24 points on drives that started in Miami territory, or a whopping SIX points without massive help from the defense.
Looking at the three highest scoring outputs (because I'm not going through all 13 of their games), it's pretty easy to see that we scored the most against Miami with the least help from field position thanks to the defense or special teams. Your argument is working against you. |
what ever dude I am not one to short change an offense after scoring on a short drive but when you are struggling to move the ball all day and you get a gift inside the 10 yard line of your opponents and score without going so much as 10 yars thats not good offense lol
Just because I am going to discount a 10 yard drive doenst mean you can automatically deduct points scored by other teams against the same defense if there was a turn over in the game thats absurd
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UofMfan909
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 22554
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| foreveryoung94 wrote: | | But since you bring it up... Has our offense scored more or less points since the change at QB? |
Alright, so since I'm taking my stats final tomorrow and I kind of want to procrastinate and this will actually help me learn a bit (I already know how to do it, it's basic stuff, just feel like having an excuse for wasting time delving into this..) I entertained this question.
This shows how our point production faired for each game vs the mean production the team has given up. Alex has faired slightly above average, at a .019 average z score (average would be 0), while Kaep's performances give him an average of a .436 score. These may seem like they're very similar scores, but consider that approximately 50.757% of all performances would be expected to fall beneath the level of offensive production with Alex at the helm, against the 66.858% that would fall beneath Kaep at the helm, and it's a pretty telling stat.
Too mathy didn't read version - we have produced more points against our competition with Kaep than we did with Alex at QB.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UofMfan909
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 22554
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Turnovers, big plays, and reaping the benefit of opportunities presented to you are all a part of football. If you want to break down exactly how we scored with Kaep, do it with how we did with Alex. The offense has had several games where they've just come up flat for both QBs.
I don't think there's a major difference in the team's success regardless of who takes control of the QB position. The affinity that the longtime Alex supporters continue to have for him, though, is a bit ridiculous. We aren't performing any worse than we have all season.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EverythingSF
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 2996
Location: Merced, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I do not understand the griping between the two different QB's here. To me it is blatant that whomever is behind Center does not really matter, for both QB's are going to be handcuffed and limited to conservative stats from the offensive play calling. Sure, Kaep is going to offer bigger numbers due to the running game and he is also more capable of buying time and creating something with his feet, but on the flip side he is also more prone to turnover the ball over than Alex is.
To be quite honest, I believe that at this point in time these QB's are about even on which gives us the best chance to win. I believe that it depends which team we are playing, meaning that against some teams Alex gives us the better chance to win and against others Kaep gives us the better chance. In my honest opinion, I would have to admit that Kaep more times than not would give us the better chance to win, but to combat that I still believe Alex holds the better opportunity to win us a Super Bowl as I am afraid that Kaep is still susceptible to a meltdown.
But back to my main point here. During this season I was beginning to believe that it was in fact Alex himself that was hindering our offense from being more aggressive. I guess I just did not want to believe that our play caller, whoever he or they might be, would be that conservative. But now with both the Rams and Saints game I think it has become quite blatant that our play calling is indeed that conservative and that is where I agree with foreveryoung94.
Our team is too complacent with a minimal lead, we have seen it over and over again and it is what IMO bites us in the arse and what our potential downfall in the playoffs could be. We've seen the Ravens falter the past decade in the playoffs time and time again as they let high powered offensive teams have too many chances to comeback on them, and at some point in the playoffs they get knocked off because of it. Last year we ourselves let it happen twice, against the Saints and ultimately ending our season against the Giants. We played conservative after getting up on the Saints until they took the lead in the 4th and we had all of the sudden step it up on offense (twice) to win. However, the next week against the Giants we again left ourselves susceptible and a mistake away from losing....Kyle Williams delivered that mistake and our conservative offense failed to be able to all of the sudden turn it on so we lost. We just recently saw ourselves do the same exact thing against the Rams last week and again a single mistake bit us in the arse and we couldn't recover. It will be fun to see how we play against the Pat's as they are the very model of a playoff team that has tormented teams with our style of play in the playoffs and I hope we do not settle with a 10 point lead in the 3rd just to watch Tom comeback on us. I am tired of seeing us not attempt to step on another teams throat and take a 3 position lead. Without that muffed punt from the Dolphins today things could have been much different, and sure we live off of others teams turnovers and have the past two years, but it only takes one good playoff team to take care of the ball to knock us off.....just like the Giants did last year
_________________
^Thanks to NS922
| EverythingSF wrote: | | Boltstrikes wrote: |
Alex's Mom? |
Alex's High School Backup?  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SoCalNiner
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 18581
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| foreveryoung94 wrote: | | I really like how BOTH the mods on this forum have taken my complaint about the current putrid performances on Offense and Automatically go into well well well Alex is the suck more!! |
What does being a mod have to do with anything? Last I checked mods were allowed opinions on matters too, we're not bots. People need to get off this kick that just because we're mods it means we can't voice our opinion.
Also, not once did I see them use the word "suck". They're providing you stats and explanations, and you're obviously getting all bent out of shape over them .
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SoCalNiner
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 18581
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| foreveryoung94 wrote: | | UofMfan909 wrote: | | foreveryoung94 wrote: | | UofMfan909 wrote: | 27 points against the Dolphins was the third most they've allowed all year. More than the best offense in the league (New England) put up just last week, and more than another top ten offense (Cincinnati) put up earlier this year. I'm not going to go through and see how many points each team got off of turnovers, but it's an absolute fact that we put up 27 points directly as a result of the offense, without forcing a single turnover on defense.
I'll agree it was ugly at the beginning, but the results kind of speak for themselves.
Oh, and considering that both of the teams who scored more than us (Houston and Tennessee) both had three interceptions against Tannehill, plus one fumble recovery, (also a defensive touchdown for Tennessee)... yeah, I think it's pretty impressive. |
Yeah except more than half of those came as a result of a turn over ( special teams turnovers are just as big ad defensive ones) and a big play that was caused by end of game desperation. If anyone watched this game and think that offense as it is is good enough to win in the next 2 weeks let alone the Superbowl. Ill just calmly decline to discuss football with them anymore. |
I like how you cite a "big play" and then try and use it as an argument against the offense.
Fact: we forced one turnover against the Dolphins today that led to a score.
Fact: we had the third highest point production total of any team against Miami today.
Fact: the two teams who scored more than us against the Dolphins each had four turnovers.
Tennessee scored 37 points against Miami. 7 came on an interception touchdown. 13 came on drives that started in Miami territory. 20 without the help of the defense. Houston scored 24 points on drives that started in Miami territory, or a whopping SIX points without massive help from the defense.
Looking at the three highest scoring outputs (because I'm not going through all 13 of their games), it's pretty easy to see that we scored the most against Miami with the least help from field position thanks to the defense or special teams. Your argument is working against you. |
what ever dude I am not one to short change an offense after scoring on a short drive but when you are struggling to move the ball all day and you get a gift inside the 10 yard line of your opponents and score without going so much as 10 yars thats not good offense lol
Just because I am going to discount a 10 yard drive doenst mean you can automatically deduct points scored by other teams against the same defense if there was a turn over in the game thats absurd |
How is that absurd? You're allowed to discount a drive/points, yet he can't? Yep, sounds fair to me.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
y2lamanaki
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 8609
Location: Lancaster, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| foreveryoung94 wrote: | | Look you Guys can bash Alex all you want. I really like how BOTH the mods on this forum have taken my complaint about the current putrid performances on Offense and Automatically go into well well well Alex is the suck more!! give me a Break. |
Here's the fun part. I DIDN'T go into the well with Alex sucks more, it's just what you want to see because you're so unbelievably biased and tried to show you so by showing that Alex benefits from the same defensive turnovers. In another thread, I showed all the stats and argued that you can't argue for one or the other as performing better, because there's no proof in either direction that one is clearly playing better than the other.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
y2lamanaki
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 8609
Location: Lancaster, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| foreveryoung94 wrote: | But since you bring it up... Has our offense scored more or less points since the change at QB?
Has our offense punts per game gone up or down since the change @ QB?
Has our offense increased or decreased it time of possession avg since the change @ QB
Is the new QB still making more plays down field since the league has adjusted?
Is the new QB still taking less sacks since the league has adjusted
Is the new QB or our offense on an upward or downward trend since the league has made adjustments?
Even if all things are equal in all the previously mentioned items going into the playoffs would you choose the vet who has seen everything the nfl has to offer good and bad with playoff exp and even playoff success? Or the second year player with at most a total of 7 games started in his entire career and has never seen the change of speed that happens in the playoffs? |
Points Per Game:
Alex - 23.8
Kaepernick - 24.0
Punts Per Game:
For the record, this is a ridiculous stat and is entirely meaningless. For instance, we punted 5 times in the Cardinals game, but only 4 times in the Giants game. Clearly, the offense faired far better in one of the two, and the other we didn't need to punt - Alex threw three interceptions which resulted in drives that didn't need punts (clearly).
Time of Possession:
Alex - 32.24 mins/game
Kaepernick - 31.42 mins/game
This one is difficult as I had to factor out Alex's time in the Rams game, factor in that Kaepernick technically had an extra quarter...so I'm not sure the math is coming out right. To be fair - if it's messed up, it means the distance between Alex and Kaepernick is a tad larger. However, Kaepernick has won the time of possession game in 3 of his 4 starts. The only time the 49ers haven't won time of possession under Kaepernick - against the Bears. And I'll take losing every time of possession battle if it means winning 32-7.
Is the new QB still making more plays down field since the league has adjusted?
I need you to clarify exactly what you want me to point out, please. It sounds like an asinine way to pigeonhole Kaepernick into losing a statistic to me. I'll say this - since Kaepernick has taken over, he's accounted for more total yards from scrimmage than Alex:
Alex - 223.5
Kaepernick - 244.8
Sack rate:
Alex - 10.0
Kaepernick - 9.2
Is the new QB or our offense on an upward or downward trend since the league has made adjustments?
Even, IMO. He came in and threw for only 115 yards in his first game action, so it seems unfair to suggest it's upward since everything after that was more than 115.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NinerNation21
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 1427
Location: South Central PA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I am going to be the BIGGEST Bills fan this week. We really need the Bills to handle the Seahawks this week. If the Seahawks lose this week then theoretically we could lose the next two games and still win the division. If the packers lose two more, the bears lose one more and the giants lose one more. we could only win one more game and still get the second seed. Highly unlikely but still possible.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
y2lamanaki
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 8609
Location: Lancaster, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NinerNation21 wrote: | | I am going to be the BIGGEST Bills fan this week. We really need the Bills to handle the Seahawks this week. If the Seahawks lose this week then theoretically we could lose the next two games and still win the division. If the packers lose two more, the bears lose one more and the giants lose one more. we could only win one more game and still get the second seed. Highly unlikely but still possible. |
Yeah, it's actually still possible to do it without winning again this year, but that's even more unlikely. Still, we clinch the division with either 2 wins or 1 win and 1 Seahawks loss, so yeah, them losing to the Bills would be huge.
Beating them or the Patriots would be even bigger. I know the team has it in them, we'll just need to be firing on all cylinders.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NinerNation21
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 1427
Location: South Central PA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| y2lamanaki wrote: | | NinerNation21 wrote: | | I am going to be the BIGGEST Bills fan this week. We really need the Bills to handle the Seahawks this week. If the Seahawks lose this week then theoretically we could lose the next two games and still win the division. If the packers lose two more, the bears lose one more and the giants lose one more. we could only win one more game and still get the second seed. Highly unlikely but still possible. |
Yeah, it's actually still possible to do it without winning again this year, but that's even more unlikely. Still, we clinch the division with either 2 wins or 1 win and 1 Seahawks loss, so yeah, them losing to the Bills would be huge.
Beating them or the Patriots would be even bigger. I know the team has it in them, we'll just need to be firing on all cylinders. |
With the way this season could end, the 49ers might need the first round bye just to recoup and prepare for the post season.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NinerNation21
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 1427
Location: South Central PA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
just reading on ESPN.com in their playoff predictor that they have the 49ers at 11-4-1 and the second seed with a 98% chance of being in the playoffs.
I would link the article but its an insider article and that may be breaking some rules.
They have the 3rd seed packers at 11-5 hosting the 6th seed Bears at 10-6 playing each other for the chance to come to San Fran in the second round.
*They have the Seahawks at 10-6 and in the 5th seed. I dont like all the attention that team is getting. Niners need to put them in their place next week.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clarkfn2284
Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 2591
Location: Modesto,CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| foreveryoung94 wrote: | | UofMfan909 wrote: | | foreveryoung94 wrote: | | UofMfan909 wrote: | 27 points against the Dolphins was the third most they've allowed all year. More than the best offense in the league (New England) put up just last week, and more than another top ten offense (Cincinnati) put up earlier this year. I'm not going to go through and see how many points each team got off of turnovers, but it's an absolute fact that we put up 27 points directly as a result of the offense, without forcing a single turnover on defense.
I'll agree it was ugly at the beginning, but the results kind of speak for themselves.
Oh, and considering that both of the teams who scored more than us (Houston and Tennessee) both had three interceptions against Tannehill, plus one fumble recovery, (also a defensive touchdown for Tennessee)... yeah, I think it's pretty impressive. |
Yeah except more than half of those came as a result of a turn over ( special teams turnovers are just as big ad defensive ones) and a big play that was caused by end of game desperation. If anyone watched this game and think that offense as it is is good enough to win in the next 2 weeks let alone the Superbowl. Ill just calmly decline to discuss football with them anymore. |
I like how you cite a "big play" and then try and use it as an argument against the offense.
Fact: we forced one turnover against the Dolphins today that led to a score.
Fact: we had the third highest point production total of any team against Miami today.
Fact: the two teams who scored more than us against the Dolphins each had four turnovers.
Tennessee scored 37 points against Miami. 7 came on an interception touchdown. 13 came on drives that started in Miami territory. 20 without the help of the defense. Houston scored 24 points on drives that started in Miami territory, or a whopping SIX points without massive help from the defense.
Looking at the three highest scoring outputs (because I'm not going through all 13 of their games), it's pretty easy to see that we scored the most against Miami with the least help from field position thanks to the defense or special teams. Your argument is working against you. |
please please stop comparing box scores they are worthless in this situation. yes more than half of our offensive production came on 1 play in which the phins used what amounts to the hail mary defense in desperation at the end of the game, and a 10 yard 2 play drive. they scored 13 points otherwise im going to complain about our offense it sucked today and no box score searching is going to prove to me other wise. In it self thats nbd but this is three straight weeks of the same thing really 15 quaters of really poor offense |
what a ridiculous statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm4dDYsI96E
in the link the phiins had 5 down linemen, 3 LB's, 1 DB and 2 safeties. They were in a single high safety, but they were in this formation because the niners were in a single WR set with 3 TE's(2 in the backfield) and single back set. It was a freaking running formation........ if they came out in a spread set you wouldnt find 9 in the box.
Even with that it's a read option play, look at the clip on the PA the dolphins line follows the blocking scheme up the hashes and Kaep makes a great read seeing the over pursuing DE and the rest is history.
it had little to do with your idea that they were going for broke on a 3rd and 5 to stop the run and more to do with the personnel and execution of the play.
Rhis might be the most mis informed post i have ever seen
_________________
San Francisco 49ers 2013 Retirement Tour;
Tony Gonzalez 1/20/13
Ray Lewis 2/3/13 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NextBigThing
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 15886
Location: Tuck Rule FTW
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Defense seems like it can play down to opponents. They've looked great against the great offenses, but quite average against averages ones. Hopefully their impending destruction at the hands of the almighty Patriots forces them to refocus and prep for their super bowl run. 
_________________
The King Does As He Pleases
| NFLfan511 wrote: | | NBT, I made an account here just because of you. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
