[cardcrimson]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Watching the 49er game last night, I realized I was wrong. Shanahan designed a play that so confused the defense that Kittle (probably the best TE in the NFL (sorry Zack)) was wide open down the middle of the field and went for a 61 yard TD. In the replays, Collingsworth explained how the Niners schemed Kittle to be unguarded. A thing of beauty.

That's the kind of creativity on offense we need, however, I fear we're stuck in the "we'll take it right to you" mindset without the players to be successful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMYql8tUE90

[cardcrimson]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Watching the 49er game last night, I realized I was wrong. Shanahan designed a play that so confused the defense that Kittle (probably the best TE in the NFL (sorry Zack)) was wide open down the middle of the field and went for a 61 yard TD. In the replays, Collingsworth explained how the Niners schemed Kittle to be unguarded. A thing of beauty.

That's the kind of creativity on offense we need, however, I fear we're stuck in the "we'll take it right to you" mindset without the players to be successful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMYql8tUE90

[Goose]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Weaver. Weaver is more known as a good tackler and run stopper. He is not overwhelming in pass coverage. Yes, you scheme to get a player wide open. It happened with Fehoko when the cover man blitzed and the safety was late getting there. You have to remember the defense plays too. You may have a plan to get somebody wide open. Then, the question is "What if the defense is competent and actually responds as best they can?" Shaw's play was designed to get the Tight End wide open (if Weaver decides to play run) or covered by an Inside Linebacker, Weaver. That is a win for the offense. The TE should be able to beat Weaver 9 out of 10 times. What you don't want is covered by a Safety, or even worse over and under by an ILB and S (which we have seen a lot of this year). The call was effective. So yes, coverage by Weaver is much preferred to coverage by a Safety. We got exactly what we wanted and planned for. Parkinson should easily beat Weaver, and if he can't outrun him, he should be able to out jump him. Weaver is 6'3". Parkinson is 6'7" and knows what the play is. Weaver has a grand total of 2 interceptions in his career at Cal. Weaver is a very good ILB, but pass defense isn't his main job. Should be a win for the offense. The pass just wasn't where Parkinson could catch it. Great call. Not great execution.

[Goose]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Weaver. Weaver is more known as a good tackler and run stopper. He is not overwhelming in pass coverage. Yes, you scheme to get a player wide open. It happened with Fehoko when the cover man blitzed and the safety was late getting there. You have to remember the defense plays too. You may have a plan to get somebody wide open. Then, the question is "What if the defense is competent and actually responds as best they can?" Shaw's play was designed to get the Tight End wide open (if Weaver decides to play run) or covered by an Inside Linebacker, Weaver. That is a win for the offense. The TE should be able to beat Weaver 9 out of 10 times. What you don't want is covered by a Safety, or even worse over and under by an ILB and S (which we have seen a lot of this year). The call was effective. So yes, coverage by Weaver is much preferred to coverage by a Safety. We got exactly what we wanted and planned for. Parkinson should easily beat Weaver, and if he can't outrun him, he should be able to out jump him. Weaver is 6'3". Parkinson is 6'7" and knows what the play is. Weaver has a grand total of 2 interceptions in his career at Cal. Weaver is a very good ILB, but pass defense isn't his main job. Should be a win for the offense. The pass just wasn't where Parkinson could catch it. Great call. Not great execution.

[cardcrimson]

Got it. Thanks.

Great call by Shaw. Mills failed to execute it.

[cardcrimson]

Got it. Thanks.

Great call by Shaw. Mills failed to execute it.

[BostonCard]

Also worth noting that TV being what it is, it doesn’t take long for a good play to be disseminated to other teams and for defenses to figure out a good counter.

Also, there are probably a lot of similar plays that we never get to think was brilliant because the defense sniffed it out.

There are two teams on the field, and they are each trying to accomplish mutually exclusive goals.  Sometimes a good play all works brilliantly; sometimes a good play doesn’t work; sometimes a “bad” play call works out because the defender who had the ballcarrier dead on rights fails to make the tackle.

Beware of post hoc ergo Procter hoc analysis, both ways.

That being said I do think it was a nice play.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also worth noting that TV being what it is, it doesn’t take long for a good play to be disseminated to other teams and for defenses to figure out a good counter.

Also, there are probably a lot of similar plays that we never get to think was brilliant because the defense sniffed it out.

There are two teams on the field, and they are each trying to accomplish mutually exclusive goals.  Sometimes a good play all works brilliantly; sometimes a good play doesn’t work; sometimes a “bad” play call works out because the defender who had the ballcarrier dead on rights fails to make the tackle.

Beware of post hoc ergo Procter hoc analysis, both ways.

That being said I do think it was a nice play.

BC

[teejers1]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Weaver. Weaver is more known as a good tackler and run stopper. He is not overwhelming in pass coverage. Yes, you scheme to get a player wide open. It happened with Fehoko when the cover man blitzed and the safety was late getting there. You have to remember the defense plays too. You may have a plan to get somebody wide open. Then, the question is "What if the defense is competent and actually responds as best they can?" Shaw's play was designed to get the Tight End wide open (if Weaver decides to play run) or covered by an Inside Linebacker, Weaver. That is a win for the offense. The TE should be able to beat Weaver 9 out of 10 times. What you don't want is covered by a Safety, or even worse over and under by an ILB and S (which we have seen a lot of this year). The call was effective. So yes, coverage by Weaver is much preferred to coverage by a Safety. We got exactly what we wanted and planned for. Parkinson should easily beat Weaver, and if he can't outrun him, he should be able to out jump him. Weaver is 6'3". Parkinson is 6'7" and knows what the play is. Weaver has a grand total of 2 interceptions in his career at Cal. Weaver is a very good ILB, but pass defense isn't his main job. Should be a win for the offense. The pass just wasn't where Parkinson could catch it. Great call. Not great execution.

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .
Great call?  Really?


And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.

(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

[teejers1]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Weaver. Weaver is more known as a good tackler and run stopper. He is not overwhelming in pass coverage. Yes, you scheme to get a player wide open. It happened with Fehoko when the cover man blitzed and the safety was late getting there. You have to remember the defense plays too. You may have a plan to get somebody wide open. Then, the question is "What if the defense is competent and actually responds as best they can?" Shaw's play was designed to get the Tight End wide open (if Weaver decides to play run) or covered by an Inside Linebacker, Weaver. That is a win for the offense. The TE should be able to beat Weaver 9 out of 10 times. What you don't want is covered by a Safety, or even worse over and under by an ILB and S (which we have seen a lot of this year). The call was effective. So yes, coverage by Weaver is much preferred to coverage by a Safety. We got exactly what we wanted and planned for. Parkinson should easily beat Weaver, and if he can't outrun him, he should be able to out jump him. Weaver is 6'3". Parkinson is 6'7" and knows what the play is. Weaver has a grand total of 2 interceptions in his career at Cal. Weaver is a very good ILB, but pass defense isn't his main job. Should be a win for the offense. The pass just wasn't where Parkinson could catch it. Great call. Not great execution.

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .
Great call?  Really?


And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.

(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

[BobK]

Great to know that the where all is the call and not execution
Really ? Thanks to Goose for his thoughts

[BobK]

Great to know that the where all is the call and not execution
Really ? Thanks to Goose for his thoughts

[BostonCard]

teejers, would you still have called the niners call "great" if Garropolo underthrew Kiddle and the ball was intercepted by a Packers safety?

I would rather have a ho-hum play well executed than a great play call poorly executed.  No matter what the call is, the linemen still have to hold their blocks, the receivers have to run their routes, the QB has to make an accurate throw or the running back has to hit the hole.

BC

[BostonCard]

teejers, would you still have called the niners call "great" if Garropolo underthrew Kiddle and the ball was intercepted by a Packers safety?

I would rather have a ho-hum play well executed than a great play call poorly executed.  No matter what the call is, the linemen still have to hold their blocks, the receivers have to run their routes, the QB has to make an accurate throw or the running back has to hit the hole.

BC

[Goose]

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .

[humor]Actually, I am his mentor.[/humor]

Great call?  Really?



And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.




(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

As you may have noticed, I did earlier post that I would have run the ball. However, Shaw's call was arguably reasonable IMHO. I know of no objective way to prove that it wasn't. However, there are some facts that we can objectively know. We know the intent of the play call was for Parkinson to either be not covered at all or to be covered by Weaver, because Shaw said so (quite vehemently). That was accomplished. If the call produces the coverage it was intended to produce, I submit it IS a great call, because that is the best case scenario. It is also a fact that Mills's pass was not in an area where Parkinson could catch it. That is just a fact.

It is also a fact that if a QB completes 74% of his passes, he is usually considered a good QB. The fact Mills missed doesn't mean he is no good. It just means he missed. It happens. Was it a real tough throw into a tight window? Not really. I am sure Mills will tell you that he has made that throw loads of times. Was it a totally trivial throw? No, he had to get it over Weaver so that Parkinson could get it and Weaver couldn't. We do this all the time.

[Goose]

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .

[humor]Actually, I am his mentor.[/humor]

Great call?  Really?



And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.




(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

As you may have noticed, I did earlier post that I would have run the ball. However, Shaw's call was arguably reasonable IMHO. I know of no objective way to prove that it wasn't. However, there are some facts that we can objectively know. We know the intent of the play call was for Parkinson to either be not covered at all or to be covered by Weaver, because Shaw said so (quite vehemently). That was accomplished. If the call produces the coverage it was intended to produce, I submit it IS a great call, because that is the best case scenario. It is also a fact that Mills's pass was not in an area where Parkinson could catch it. That is just a fact.

It is also a fact that if a QB completes 74% of his passes, he is usually considered a good QB. The fact Mills missed doesn't mean he is no good. It just means he missed. It happens. Was it a real tough throw into a tight window? Not really. I am sure Mills will tell you that he has made that throw loads of times. Was it a totally trivial throw? No, he had to get it over Weaver so that Parkinson could get it and Weaver couldn't. We do this all the time.

[teejers1]

teejers, would you still have called the niners call "great" if Garropolo underthrew Kiddle and the ball was intercepted by a Packers safety?

I would rather have a ho-hum play well executed than a great play call poorly executed.  No matter what the call is, the linemen still have to hold their blocks, the receivers have to run their routes, the QB has to make an accurate throw or the running back has to hit the hole.

BC

Yes to your question.  (And btw, due to how wide open Kittle was, you don't need perfect execution to still have a very good yardage play).

And execution is required for every play.  Wouldn't you rather have a great play call (that still needs some execution), as opposed to vanilla plays that require perfect execution to be successful?

And as for Goose, the goal is not to score a TD on second and 4 (or it should not be, imo).  The goal should be to get a first down, burn clock, and score something with little/no time left on the clock.  That's basic game/clock management, isn't it? 

[Okay. . . I'm done on these threads.  Promise.  On to hoops season, which I hope is more successful and enjoyable.  So far, so good.].

[teejers1]

teejers, would you still have called the niners call "great" if Garropolo underthrew Kiddle and the ball was intercepted by a Packers safety?

I would rather have a ho-hum play well executed than a great play call poorly executed.  No matter what the call is, the linemen still have to hold their blocks, the receivers have to run their routes, the QB has to make an accurate throw or the running back has to hit the hole.

BC

Yes to your question.  (And btw, due to how wide open Kittle was, you don't need perfect execution to still have a very good yardage play).

And execution is required for every play.  Wouldn't you rather have a great play call (that still needs some execution), as opposed to vanilla plays that require perfect execution to be successful?

And as for Goose, the goal is not to score a TD on second and 4 (or it should not be, imo).  The goal should be to get a first down, burn clock, and score something with little/no time left on the clock.  That's basic game/clock management, isn't it? 

[Okay. . . I'm done on these threads.  Promise.  On to hoops season, which I hope is more successful and enjoyable.  So far, so good.].

[cardcrimson]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Weaver. Weaver is more known as a good tackler and run stopper. He is not overwhelming in pass coverage. Yes, you scheme to get a player wide open. It happened with Fehoko when the cover man blitzed and the safety was late getting there. You have to remember the defense plays too. You may have a plan to get somebody wide open. Then, the question is "What if the defense is competent and actually responds as best they can?" Shaw's play was designed to get the Tight End wide open (if Weaver decides to play run) or covered by an Inside Linebacker, Weaver. That is a win for the offense. The TE should be able to beat Weaver 9 out of 10 times. What you don't want is covered by a Safety, or even worse over and under by an ILB and S (which we have seen a lot of this year). The call was effective. So yes, coverage by Weaver is much preferred to coverage by a Safety. We got exactly what we wanted and planned for. Parkinson should easily beat Weaver, and if he can't outrun him, he should be able to out jump him. Weaver is 6'3". Parkinson is 6'7" and knows what the play is. Weaver has a grand total of 2 interceptions in his career at Cal. Weaver is a very good ILB, but pass defense isn't his main job. Should be a win for the offense. The pass just wasn't where Parkinson could catch it. Great call. Not great execution.

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .
Great call?  Really?


And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.

(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

Bingo.

---

My post wasn't about the one play, but the mentality that Shaw would take that match up all day long. Kinda like running the ball between the tackles four straight times against MSU, cause "that's what we do". Shanahan is unpredictable and finds very creative ways to get his best players involved. Jump balls and curl routes just don't cut it anymore.

[cardcrimson]

Something that struck me odd in Shaw's post game presser was his comment that liked the match up of the best TE in the country against the best LB in the country (Parkinson vs whomever from Cal). As noted in another thread, I mentioned that it seems to me you would try to have a play that gets the TE isolated against anyone besides the best LB in the country.

Weaver. Weaver is more known as a good tackler and run stopper. He is not overwhelming in pass coverage. Yes, you scheme to get a player wide open. It happened with Fehoko when the cover man blitzed and the safety was late getting there. You have to remember the defense plays too. You may have a plan to get somebody wide open. Then, the question is "What if the defense is competent and actually responds as best they can?" Shaw's play was designed to get the Tight End wide open (if Weaver decides to play run) or covered by an Inside Linebacker, Weaver. That is a win for the offense. The TE should be able to beat Weaver 9 out of 10 times. What you don't want is covered by a Safety, or even worse over and under by an ILB and S (which we have seen a lot of this year). The call was effective. So yes, coverage by Weaver is much preferred to coverage by a Safety. We got exactly what we wanted and planned for. Parkinson should easily beat Weaver, and if he can't outrun him, he should be able to out jump him. Weaver is 6'3". Parkinson is 6'7" and knows what the play is. Weaver has a grand total of 2 interceptions in his career at Cal. Weaver is a very good ILB, but pass defense isn't his main job. Should be a win for the offense. The pass just wasn't where Parkinson could catch it. Great call. Not great execution.

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .
Great call?  Really?


And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.

(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

Bingo.

---

My post wasn't about the one play, but the mentality that Shaw would take that match up all day long. Kinda like running the ball between the tackles four straight times against MSU, cause "that's what we do". Shanahan is unpredictable and finds very creative ways to get his best players involved. Jump balls and curl routes just don't cut it anymore.

[BostonCard]

I wonder, what happens when/if the Niners start running this play more often.  Does it keep working every time, or is there something that a savvy defensive coordinator, seeing the play on film, can counter-scheme.  Would Kittle always be wide open because this is an indefensible play?  I doubt that.  The question is whether you still can get a decent match-up (and Kittle being an elite tight end, you probably can) even if the defense covers it.  I don't think you can always count on your receiver wide open, so then it will require the offense to execute the play.  If it truly is schematically indefensible, then shouldn't the Niners be running it every single time?

Same story with Mills' touchdown passes to a wide open Fehoko against both UW and Cal.  You can make an argument that "scheme" was responsible, but more likely it was a combination of the play call being effective against what the defense was trying to do.  In this case, we called the right play at the right time, but that doesn't mean that it was an indefensible play.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wonder, what happens when/if the Niners start running this play more often.  Does it keep working every time, or is there something that a savvy defensive coordinator, seeing the play on film, can counter-scheme.  Would Kittle always be wide open because this is an indefensible play?  I doubt that.  The question is whether you still can get a decent match-up (and Kittle being an elite tight end, you probably can) even if the defense covers it.  I don't think you can always count on your receiver wide open, so then it will require the offense to execute the play.  If it truly is schematically indefensible, then shouldn't the Niners be running it every single time?

Same story with Mills' touchdown passes to a wide open Fehoko against both UW and Cal.  You can make an argument that "scheme" was responsible, but more likely it was a combination of the play call being effective against what the defense was trying to do.  In this case, we called the right play at the right time, but that doesn't mean that it was an indefensible play.

BC

[Goose]

My post wasn't about the one play, but the mentality that Shaw would take that match up all day long. Kinda like running the ball between the tackles four straight times against MSU, cause "that's what we do". Shanahan is unpredictable and finds very creative ways to get his best players involved. Jump balls and curl routes just don't cut it anymore.

I am willing to wager that Shanahan would take Kittle matched up with Blake Martinez all day long, if he could.

---

I wonder, what happens when/if the Niners start running this play more often.  Does it keep working every time, or is there something that a savvy defensive coordinator, seeing the play on film, can counter-scheme.  Would Kittle always be wide open because this is an indefensible play?  I doubt that.  The question is whether you still can get a decent match-up (and Kittle being an elite tight end, you probably can) even if the defense covers it.  I don't think you can always count on your receiver wide open, so then it will require the offense to execute the play.  If it truly is schematically indefensible, then shouldn't the Niners be running it every single time?

Same story with Mills' touchdown passes to a wide open Fehoko against both UW and Cal.  You can make an argument that "scheme" was responsible, but more likely it was a combination of the play call being effective against what the defense was trying to do.  In this case, we called the right play at the right time, but that doesn't mean that it was an indefensible play.

BC

Totally agree. If Cal doesn't blitz, Fehoko has to beat one-on-one coverage. It is still a "good" play call, just not a slam-dunk wide open one. Fehoko can probably run by the guy, but he has to do it. There is no immediate help over the top. If they do blitz, and the Safety reacts quicker, we get a big gain but not a TD, unless the Safety misses the tackle (which can happen). If Fehoko keeps running full speed, he runs right into the coverage by the Safety, so it is essential he recognize that and slow up a bit, which he did. Rector messed this exact play up several times back in the day by running right into coverage. Another example where execution can mess up a great call.

[Goose]

My post wasn't about the one play, but the mentality that Shaw would take that match up all day long. Kinda like running the ball between the tackles four straight times against MSU, cause "that's what we do". Shanahan is unpredictable and finds very creative ways to get his best players involved. Jump balls and curl routes just don't cut it anymore.

I am willing to wager that Shanahan would take Kittle matched up with Blake Martinez all day long, if he could.

---

I wonder, what happens when/if the Niners start running this play more often.  Does it keep working every time, or is there something that a savvy defensive coordinator, seeing the play on film, can counter-scheme.  Would Kittle always be wide open because this is an indefensible play?  I doubt that.  The question is whether you still can get a decent match-up (and Kittle being an elite tight end, you probably can) even if the defense covers it.  I don't think you can always count on your receiver wide open, so then it will require the offense to execute the play.  If it truly is schematically indefensible, then shouldn't the Niners be running it every single time?

Same story with Mills' touchdown passes to a wide open Fehoko against both UW and Cal.  You can make an argument that "scheme" was responsible, but more likely it was a combination of the play call being effective against what the defense was trying to do.  In this case, we called the right play at the right time, but that doesn't mean that it was an indefensible play.

BC

Totally agree. If Cal doesn't blitz, Fehoko has to beat one-on-one coverage. It is still a "good" play call, just not a slam-dunk wide open one. Fehoko can probably run by the guy, but he has to do it. There is no immediate help over the top. If they do blitz, and the Safety reacts quicker, we get a big gain but not a TD, unless the Safety misses the tackle (which can happen). If Fehoko keeps running full speed, he runs right into the coverage by the Safety, so it is essential he recognize that and slow up a bit, which he did. Rector messed this exact play up several times back in the day by running right into coverage. Another example where execution can mess up a great call.

[cardcrimson]

I wonder, what happens when/if the Niners start running this play more often.  Does it keep working every time, or is there something that a savvy defensive coordinator, seeing the play on film, can counter-scheme.  Would Kittle always be wide open because this is an indefensible play?  I doubt that.  The question is whether you still can get a decent match-up (and Kittle being an elite tight end, you probably can) even if the defense covers it.  I don't think you can always count on your receiver wide open, so then it will require the offense to execute the play.  If it truly is schematically indefensible, then shouldn't the Niners be running it every single time?

Same story with Mills' touchdown passes to a wide open Fehoko against both UW and Cal.  You can make an argument that "scheme" was responsible, but more likely it was a combination of the play call being effective against what the defense was trying to do.  In this case, we called the right play at the right time, but that doesn't mean that it was an indefensible play.

BC

Good heavens. I'm not the one that said I'd take the same match up all day. Shaw did. I simply commented on the creativity of Shanahan and how I'd like to see that in our offense. He doesn't run the same play over and over again. He finds creative ways for his best players to exploit the defense. What a concept.

 BTW, from what I understand, the plays to Fehoko were great. Congrats to the mindtrust for that. . . .

---

No, he wouldn't.

[quote="cardcrimson" pid='262255' dateline='1574740833']

My post wasn't about the one play, but the mentality that Shaw would take that match up all day long. Kinda like running the ball between the tackles four straight times against MSU, cause "that's what we do". Shanahan is unpredictable and finds very creative ways to get his best players involved. Jump balls and curl routes just don't cut it anymore.

I am willing to wager that Shanahan would take Kittle matched up with Blake Martinez all day long, if he could.

[cardcrimson]

I wonder, what happens when/if the Niners start running this play more often.  Does it keep working every time, or is there something that a savvy defensive coordinator, seeing the play on film, can counter-scheme.  Would Kittle always be wide open because this is an indefensible play?  I doubt that.  The question is whether you still can get a decent match-up (and Kittle being an elite tight end, you probably can) even if the defense covers it.  I don't think you can always count on your receiver wide open, so then it will require the offense to execute the play.  If it truly is schematically indefensible, then shouldn't the Niners be running it every single time?

Same story with Mills' touchdown passes to a wide open Fehoko against both UW and Cal.  You can make an argument that "scheme" was responsible, but more likely it was a combination of the play call being effective against what the defense was trying to do.  In this case, we called the right play at the right time, but that doesn't mean that it was an indefensible play.

BC

Good heavens. I'm not the one that said I'd take the same match up all day. Shaw did. I simply commented on the creativity of Shanahan and how I'd like to see that in our offense. He doesn't run the same play over and over again. He finds creative ways for his best players to exploit the defense. What a concept.

 BTW, from what I understand, the plays to Fehoko were great. Congrats to the mindtrust for that. . . .

---

No, he wouldn't.

[quote="cardcrimson" pid='262255' dateline='1574740833']

My post wasn't about the one play, but the mentality that Shaw would take that match up all day long. Kinda like running the ball between the tackles four straight times against MSU, cause "that's what we do". Shanahan is unpredictable and finds very creative ways to get his best players involved. Jump balls and curl routes just don't cut it anymore.

I am willing to wager that Shanahan would take Kittle matched up with Blake Martinez all day long, if he could.

[BostonCard]

Through last year, Martinez has 15 passes defended and 2 interceptions.  He gives up two inches and 13 pounds to Kittle, and is about 0.2 seconds slower in the 40 (4.52 versus 4.71).  Martinez is a great linebacker, and like Weaver, he is a sure tackler and great run stopper but not considered as good in pass coverage.

BC

[BostonCard]

Through last year, Martinez has 15 passes defended and 2 interceptions.  He gives up two inches and 13 pounds to Kittle, and is about 0.2 seconds slower in the 40 (4.52 versus 4.71).  Martinez is a great linebacker, and like Weaver, he is a sure tackler and great run stopper but not considered as good in pass coverage.

BC

[Goose]

Through last year, Martinez has 15 passes defended and 2 interceptions.  He gives up two inches and 13 pounds to Kittle, and is about 0.2 seconds slower in the 40 (4.52 versus 4.71).  Martinez is a great linebacker, and like Weaver, he is a sure tackler and great run stopper but not considered as good in pass coverage.

BC

Yes, and the 15 passes defended is over a 3+ year period. Kittle would just run away from him. That is why I am pretty sure Shanahan would just love the matchup if he could get it. Martinez has 357 tackles during the same period. He is a very good player, but pass coverage isn't his thing.

[Goose]

Through last year, Martinez has 15 passes defended and 2 interceptions.  He gives up two inches and 13 pounds to Kittle, and is about 0.2 seconds slower in the 40 (4.52 versus 4.71).  Martinez is a great linebacker, and like Weaver, he is a sure tackler and great run stopper but not considered as good in pass coverage.

BC

Yes, and the 15 passes defended is over a 3+ year period. Kittle would just run away from him. That is why I am pretty sure Shanahan would just love the matchup if he could get it. Martinez has 357 tackles during the same period. He is a very good player, but pass coverage isn't his thing.

[cardcrimson]

Through last year, Martinez has 15 passes defended and 2 interceptions.  He gives up two inches and 13 pounds to Kittle, and is about 0.2 seconds slower in the 40 (4.52 versus 4.71).  Martinez is a great linebacker, and like Weaver, he is a sure tackler and great run stopper but not considered as good in pass coverage.

BC

Yes, and the 15 passes defended is over a 3+ year period. Kittle would just run away from him. That is why I am pretty sure Shanahan would just love the matchup if he could get it. Martinez has 357 tackles during the same period. He is a very good player, but pass coverage isn't his thing.

Okay. Blake plays for the Packers, right? Shanahan and Kittle torched the Packers on the aforementioned play. Was Blake on the field and was he responsible for the coverage deep over the middle? Methinks yes he was on the field and no he wasn't responsible for coverage. So why are your stats pertinent at all? Shanahan didn't exploit Martinez, he avoided him, and everyone else.

All I'm hoping for is some consistent creativity, is that unreasonable to ask for. Apparently yes by some of the responses.

[cardcrimson]

Through last year, Martinez has 15 passes defended and 2 interceptions.  He gives up two inches and 13 pounds to Kittle, and is about 0.2 seconds slower in the 40 (4.52 versus 4.71).  Martinez is a great linebacker, and like Weaver, he is a sure tackler and great run stopper but not considered as good in pass coverage.

BC

Yes, and the 15 passes defended is over a 3+ year period. Kittle would just run away from him. That is why I am pretty sure Shanahan would just love the matchup if he could get it. Martinez has 357 tackles during the same period. He is a very good player, but pass coverage isn't his thing.

Okay. Blake plays for the Packers, right? Shanahan and Kittle torched the Packers on the aforementioned play. Was Blake on the field and was he responsible for the coverage deep over the middle? Methinks yes he was on the field and no he wasn't responsible for coverage. So why are your stats pertinent at all? Shanahan didn't exploit Martinez, he avoided him, and everyone else.

All I'm hoping for is some consistent creativity, is that unreasonable to ask for. Apparently yes by some of the responses.

[BostonCard]

What if the next time Shanahan ran the play Kittle was bracketed by a linebacker up front and a safety behind.  Would you still love your play call?  It was a good play call for what the defense did.  But I don't know that it is absolutely a good play call all the time (and probably isn't, otherwise you call it every time).  It is fun and great when you get a wide open receiver or tight end galloping for a brobdingnagian play.  But there is this persistent myth that a great coach can consistently engineer such plays.  The best most coaches count on is that they leave their players with a chance to make a one on one play.  If you are on the offense, you like a wide receiver in one on one coverage with no safety help.  You like a running play where you can get a blocker onto every defender on the playside.  You like when your tight end is matched up against a slower linebacker, or when your 6'4" receiver is matched up against a 5'10" DB.  On defense, you like it if your guy is in a position to make an open field tackle on the ballcarrier.  If you can put your guys in a position where they have a chance to make a positive play, you've done your job.  If the play happens to catch the defense off guard, that's a bonus, but it cannot be counted on. There's a persistent myth that a genius coach can somehow always dial in the right play that no matter what the circumstance will leave a receiver wide open, or a gaping hole in the line of scrimmage.  Truth of the matter is that those are the exceptions, and the vast majority of the plays will feature both the offense and defense with a chance to make a play, and the result is dependent on which side executes better.  So the best you can hope for is that the ball goes to player that has a size, speed, or athletic advantage over the defender charged with stopping him.

The difference between 2019 and 2015 is not that in the intervening years Shaw got stupid.  It's that when you have McCaffrey and Hogan in a backfield together behind an experienced offensive line and guys like Rector out wide, more often than not you will have an advantage.

Take a look again at the first play from scrimmage from the 2015 Rose Bowl

https://youtu.be/xxgKvejsTZI?t=13

First, our five offensive linemen give Hogan a clean pocket to throw from.
Second, McCaffrey jukes Iowa's #20 ever so slightly to catch him out of position.
Third, Hogan recognizes it and throws a ball that McCaffrey can catch in stride
Fourth, McCaffrey makes the catch and of course outruns the linebacker to daylight.

Let's imagine the play in 2019
Do you think that three true freshmen could give Costello/Mills a clean pocket (almost always on non-screen running plays, Scarlett was kept in to help block)
Do you see Scarlett with the moves to get a linebacker to bite on the juke?
Would Mills or Costello recognize it and deliver a ball in stride to McCaffrey?
Is Scarlett capable of outrunning the rest of the defense to score a 75 yard touchdown?

The only maybe is Mills hitting a running back in stride.  It was a great play.  But it was not a great play because nobody was covering McCaffrey; it was a great play because we got a linebacker covering McCaffrey and the dude is a playmaker.

Now let's look at the second touchdown, when Hogan keeps it and scores (33 second mark).  So it's a pretty standard read option with the defensive end crashing McCaffrey.  But, you have two defenders and only one blocker in front of Hogan, and a more athletic linebacker (or less athletic QB) would have stopped the play for a 1-2 yard gain.  But Hogan reverses course, the linebacker is slow to react, and its a touchdown.  Score one for individual effort.  Would Costello or Mills, with their injury history, be able to do that?  I don't think they are as mobile.

Next two touchdowns came on the Quenton Meeks interception and the McCaffrey punt return.  Fifth touchdown (1:26 mark), score one for an inventive playcall.  Fake fumble, two safeties bite and you have one on ones with Rector and (I think Cajuste) against CB's.  Rector is fast enough to blow by the DB and catch the ball, and you like your chances in that match up even if you get it through other means.  I suspect that a good play action pass would have produced the same result, and that is something that Mills can generally execute, but is really missing from Costello's repertoire.  Regardless, unless you think that play was all Bloomberg, it's the same guy who now is apparently an idiot calling plays.

Good players can make any coach look like a genius more often than a genius coach can make average players look like world beaters.

BC

[BostonCard]

What if the next time Shanahan ran the play Kittle was bracketed by a linebacker up front and a safety behind.  Would you still love your play call?  It was a good play call for what the defense did.  But I don't know that it is absolutely a good play call all the time (and probably isn't, otherwise you call it every time).  It is fun and great when you get a wide open receiver or tight end galloping for a brobdingnagian play.  But there is this persistent myth that a great coach can consistently engineer such plays.  The best most coaches count on is that they leave their players with a chance to make a one on one play.  If you are on the offense, you like a wide receiver in one on one coverage with no safety help.  You like a running play where you can get a blocker onto every defender on the playside.  You like when your tight end is matched up against a slower linebacker, or when your 6'4" receiver is matched up against a 5'10" DB.  On defense, you like it if your guy is in a position to make an open field tackle on the ballcarrier.  If you can put your guys in a position where they have a chance to make a positive play, you've done your job.  If the play happens to catch the defense off guard, that's a bonus, but it cannot be counted on. There's a persistent myth that a genius coach can somehow always dial in the right play that no matter what the circumstance will leave a receiver wide open, or a gaping hole in the line of scrimmage.  Truth of the matter is that those are the exceptions, and the vast majority of the plays will feature both the offense and defense with a chance to make a play, and the result is dependent on which side executes better.  So the best you can hope for is that the ball goes to player that has a size, speed, or athletic advantage over the defender charged with stopping him.

The difference between 2019 and 2015 is not that in the intervening years Shaw got stupid.  It's that when you have McCaffrey and Hogan in a backfield together behind an experienced offensive line and guys like Rector out wide, more often than not you will have an advantage.

Take a look again at the first play from scrimmage from the 2015 Rose Bowl

https://youtu.be/xxgKvejsTZI?t=13

First, our five offensive linemen give Hogan a clean pocket to throw from.
Second, McCaffrey jukes Iowa's #20 ever so slightly to catch him out of position.
Third, Hogan recognizes it and throws a ball that McCaffrey can catch in stride
Fourth, McCaffrey makes the catch and of course outruns the linebacker to daylight.

Let's imagine the play in 2019
Do you think that three true freshmen could give Costello/Mills a clean pocket (almost always on non-screen running plays, Scarlett was kept in to help block)
Do you see Scarlett with the moves to get a linebacker to bite on the juke?
Would Mills or Costello recognize it and deliver a ball in stride to McCaffrey?
Is Scarlett capable of outrunning the rest of the defense to score a 75 yard touchdown?

The only maybe is Mills hitting a running back in stride.  It was a great play.  But it was not a great play because nobody was covering McCaffrey; it was a great play because we got a linebacker covering McCaffrey and the dude is a playmaker.

Now let's look at the second touchdown, when Hogan keeps it and scores (33 second mark).  So it's a pretty standard read option with the defensive end crashing McCaffrey.  But, you have two defenders and only one blocker in front of Hogan, and a more athletic linebacker (or less athletic QB) would have stopped the play for a 1-2 yard gain.  But Hogan reverses course, the linebacker is slow to react, and its a touchdown.  Score one for individual effort.  Would Costello or Mills, with their injury history, be able to do that?  I don't think they are as mobile.

Next two touchdowns came on the Quenton Meeks interception and the McCaffrey punt return.  Fifth touchdown (1:26 mark), score one for an inventive playcall.  Fake fumble, two safeties bite and you have one on ones with Rector and (I think Cajuste) against CB's.  Rector is fast enough to blow by the DB and catch the ball, and you like your chances in that match up even if you get it through other means.  I suspect that a good play action pass would have produced the same result, and that is something that Mills can generally execute, but is really missing from Costello's repertoire.  Regardless, unless you think that play was all Bloomberg, it's the same guy who now is apparently an idiot calling plays.

Good players can make any coach look like a genius more often than a genius coach can make average players look like world beaters.

BC

[pefloresjr]

I agree Shanahan is a creative offensive coach but he can't just scheme and playcall his team to wins.  The Niners are doing great this year but they were 4-12 last year; worse than our likely 4-8 this year.  In seven of the Niners' losses last year, they scored fewer than 20 points.  What is the difference this year?  Shanahan didn't suddenly become a great or creative coach.  The difference is he has a healthier team and some new players who are executing much better this year.  

Similarly, Shaw or a new offensive coordinator couldn't necessarily scheme their way into making this year's team a winner.  I think our teams' biggest problem is related to recruiting misses and failures over time.  That being said, even without those issues, we might still be in the same situation based on injuries and some recruited players not ending up as good as we had hoped.  You never really know how good a player will be until they get here and take the field.  Sometimes, you end up with a team that just doesn't perform well despite the coaches best efforts to bring better play out of them.  Your example using Shanahan and the Niners' just doesn't prove that other teams are more creative and therefore more successful while Shaw and this team are not.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I agree Shanahan is a creative offensive coach but he can't just scheme and playcall his team to wins.  The Niners are doing great this year but they were 4-12 last year; worse than our likely 4-8 this year.  In seven of the Niners' losses last year, they scored fewer than 20 points.  What is the difference this year?  Shanahan didn't suddenly become a great or creative coach.  The difference is he has a healthier team and some new players who are executing much better this year.  

Similarly, Shaw or a new offensive coordinator couldn't necessarily scheme their way into making this year's team a winner.  I think our teams' biggest problem is related to recruiting misses and failures over time.  That being said, even without those issues, we might still be in the same situation based on injuries and some recruited players not ending up as good as we had hoped.  You never really know how good a player will be until they get here and take the field.  Sometimes, you end up with a team that just doesn't perform well despite the coaches best efforts to bring better play out of them.  Your example using Shanahan and the Niners' just doesn't prove that other teams are more creative and therefore more successful while Shaw and this team are not.  

Cheers,
Pete F.