Week 13 GDT - San Francisco 49ers @ Chicago Bears

[big9erfan]

5 hours ago, Forge said:

No shock there. Could be interesting - a scaled back playbook isn't always the worst thing

At this time of year I couldn't care less. Keep it simple and just execute the heck out of it.  

Found an old ESPN mag in a waiting room and was reading about the demise of the QB sneak.  Article said it is significantly more successful than any other non-sneak run, and way, way more effective than passing on dowsn where you could sneak it.  It even said 2-yard sneaks were more successful than 1-yard non-sneaks.  This is something Shanny needs to read.  He's always going for something more complicated or more deceptive when the fact is that a sneak is more likely to work.  So, I'm happy with keeping it simple this week.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

At this time of year I couldn't care less. Keep it simple and just execute the heck out of it.  

Found an old ESPN mag in a waiting room and was reading about the demise of the QB sneak.  Article said it is significantly more successful than any other non-sneak run, and way, way more effective than passing on dowsn where you could sneak it.  It even said 2-yard sneaks were more successful than 1-yard non-sneaks.  This is something Shanny needs to read.  He's always going for something more complicated or more deceptive when the fact is that a sneak is more likely to work.  So, I'm happy with keeping it simple this week.

I'm just glad you said "couldn't care" instead of "could care". Might of just made my day. 

[rudyZ]

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

At this time of year I couldn't care less. Keep it simple and just execute the heck out of it.  

Found an old ESPN mag in a waiting room and was reading about the demise of the QB sneak.  Article said it is significantly more successful than any other non-sneak run, and way, way more effective than passing on dowsn where you could sneak it.  It even said 2-yard sneaks were more successful than 1-yard non-sneaks.  This is something Shanny needs to read.  He's always going for something more complicated or more deceptive when the fact is that a sneak is more likely to work.  So, I'm happy with keeping it simple this week.

Seems like Jimmy might actually aware of that. Brady has done it for years, practically mastering the QB sneak. And out of his four plays, he managed to sneak in a QB sneak. We are in dire need of some QB savvy, and I'm hoping Garoppolo has learned a thing or two during his time in NE. QB sneaks, pocket presence, working his cadence, manipulating safeties, etc.These might seem like small tools, but add them all together, and a QB has a chance to make a big difference.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

[J-ALL-DAY]

This has to be the most anticipated game for us in the last three or four years lol.

So is Marsh going to take playing time away from Blair and make Lynch inactive again or what?

[big9erfan]

20 hours ago, rudyZ said:

Seems like Jimmy might actually aware of that. Brady has done it for years, practically mastering the QB sneak. And out of his four plays, he managed to sneak in a QB sneak. We are in dire need of some QB savvy, and I'm hoping Garoppolo has learned a thing or two during his time in NE. QB sneaks, pocket presence, working his cadence, manipulating safeties, etc.These might seem like small tools, but add them all together, and a QB has a chance to make a big difference.

Yep.  The article actually had success rate by individual QB. Brady's was the highest.  I forgot the number.  But the fact is I can hardly ever remember him being stopped on any of those many sneaks he's made over the years.  And thanks for reminding me that he was Jimmy's mentor.  Maybe we'll see more QB sneaks and fewer way-more-complicated plays that don't succeed.

[rudyZ]

3 hours ago, big9erfan said:

Yep.  The article actually had success rate by individual QB. Brady's was the highest.  I forgot the number.  But the fact is I can hardly ever remember him being stopped on any of those many sneaks he's made over the years.  And thanks for reminding me that he was Jimmy's mentor.  Maybe we'll see more QB sneaks and fewer way-more-complicated plays that don't succeed.

I have no doubt we'll see a lot of Kyle trying to outsmart himself over the years (wow.. I must be confident, thinking he'll last years! Not used to it anymore). But first, we should try to establish that we can run the QB sneak with Jimmy, and it should make all the other options all that much better. 

Out of curiosity, is there a rule against the center snapping the ball between his and the QB's legs while he's under center, to a running back standing behind them? Imagine the fake, with the OL and QB going for the sneak, but the ball being in the RB's hands. I've never played OL (I'm 5'7 after all...), so I don't know if there's technique involved for the C, that the QB would get in the way of. But if it's a rule, then forget it. I've always been curious about that.

[big9erfan]

Just seven years ago, one of the weirdest rules still standing on the NFL's books was applied in a tense NFC showdown between the Chicago Bears and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Per Mark Maske of the Washington Post, "the Bears and Philadelphia Eagles were tied at 9 early in the fourth quarter at Lincoln Financial Field when Chicago quarterback Brian Griese had a snap by center Olin Kreutz go through his legs, untouched by Griese. The ball rolled behind the quarterback and was picked up by Eagles safety Sean Considine, whose return put his team in position for a go-ahead touchdown."

However, head referee Ed Hochuli would have none of it. He whistled the play dead and called a false start on the Bears, who ended up scoring a field goal on that possession and winning the game, 19-16.

 

Why did Hochuli blow the play dead exactly?

 

"If the ball is snapped in between the quarterback's legs, he has to be the one to get the ball," officiating supervisor Art McNalley told a pool reporter after the game. "Under these circumstances, it has to be ruled a false start. If he's in shotgun and the [ball] is snapped over his head, [it's a] clean play. Pick it up. Go ahead and go the other way. Everything's fine. The fact that he's taking the snap direct from the center [and the ball] goes through his legs, [the referee has] got to kill it right away, false start."

So, to recap: if a quarterback is directly under center and the ball is snapped between his legs without him touching it, it's not a turnover if a defensive player recovers it without the QB touching it first.

Why is the rule in place? To be honest, even McNalley has no clue.

"I don't know what the intent of the rule is," McNalley admitted, "but the ball has to be taken by the quarterback. If he doesn't handle the snap, then it's got to be a false start."

 

The NFL - where rules are made and no one knows why.

[rudyZ]

Then what if we have two quarterbacks on the field? Jimmy and CJ at the same time. Can there, by rule, be only one acting quarterback on any given play? If two QBs can be on the field at the same time, then can someone else be designated a QB, like an OL being designated an eligible receiver? There seems to be a hole in the rules, there. What if we drafted a guy like JT Barrett, and kept him at QB, but generally used him as a WR or RB, but on occasion, he'd line up behind Jimmy, still being listed as a QB, then could he take the snap? On a wildcat play, when a QB lines up wide and a RB takes the snap, what's the rule, there? That the QB isn't a QB, and the RB is? So, if we had two QBs lined up one behind another, only one would be considered a QB, and the other would be a RB? It's weird to think that being under center brings a whole different set of rules than the rest of the time.

[burlow]

So I was taking a dump and looking at facebook on my phone, while scrolling through it came up with a little 49ers graphic.  What it said "It is only 24 hours until his first start" (at least something like this, it had a picture of Jimmy with it.  What I thought it said at first glance "Only 24 hours until the next false start", it made me chuckle a good bit.  On a somewhat related topic it does seem that this team is committing a lot fewer penalties than the rate that we started the season.

[Forge]

2 hours ago, burlow said:

 On a somewhat related topic it does seem that this team is committing a lot fewer penalties than the rate that we started the season.

We traded Rashard Robinson lol

[rudyZ]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

We traded Rashard Robinson lol

Tragically, that's a big part of the explanation.

I think it's not uncommon for teams under a new coaching staff to struggle with penalties early on. The illegal formation/shift kinds, false starts, and all sorts of mental errors. From all the reports, the players have never stopped to work really hard all year, so I'm not surprised to see an improvement in regards to penalties. Now if only refs started giving us the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tough (or not) judgement calls, like DPI penalties that aren't really DPI (and in some cases are actually OPI).

[rudyZ]

4 hours ago, burlow said:

So I was taking a dump and looking at facebook on my phone, while scrolling through it came up with a little 49ers graphic.  What it said "It is only 24 hours until his first start" (at least something like this, it had a picture of Jimmy with it.  What I thought it said at first glance "Only 24 hours until the next false start", it made me chuckle a good bit.  On a somewhat related topic it does seem that this team is committing a lot fewer penalties than the rate that we started the season.

And I saw a tweet that talked about Hue Jackson's record with the Browns, who are facing the Chargers, right? That stat given was that Hue is 1-26 with the Browns, but he's 1-0 against the Chargers!! Optimism!!!

[TecmoSuperJoe]

So...I guess if Jimmy G doesn't hack it in the pros he'll probably have a TV analyst job lined up for him ASAP. Or have a modeling gig. Wish I was a tall, handsome goon myself.

[rudyZ]

2 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

So...I guess if Jimmy G doesn't hack it in the pros he'll probably have a TV analyst job lined up for him ASAP. Or have a modeling gig. Wish I was a tall, handsome goon myself.

It's nice to have options, I guess... my options are : starting at the bottom of the ladder, or stay where I am at the third rung.