Tweet
I don't think the weather on game day really beat us as much as the combination of weather in back to back weeks got us. There is no excuse for not being able to play in the cold. But to go from dehydrated and exhausted in the humidity to bitter cold was too much. I just don't see how anyone could have mentally adjusted.
But, even if we had been in that game, I don't think we could have beaten them, at least not by trying to outscore them. If the teams were the same as the regular season performances, maybe. But 49ers offense and D were both a lot better then when we faced them. Their secondary, with Eric Wright and Ronnie Lott at CB got a lot better as the season went on. And their pass rush was a lot better too. I don't think they could have stopped our O completely, but they would have slowed us down enough that their offense would have kept scoring, and I think we lose a shootout.
I do think we could have won, just we would have had to win it the old fashioned way. Game plan, and some ball control. But I think when our D was that bad, we had to protect them some, minimize their exposure. And controlling the clock does that.
SDfan, I agree about the running game. I think you still want to develop Rivers as a passer, but that doesn't mean you go away from the running game. I think the tempo, run/pass ratio, game plan around who to attack, all fits into the thing. Again, I am not suggesting we not go up tempo to attack teams, just that there are times when a team may want to try to play at a slower tempo and that may work out better for us. But either earlier or later in the same game, we may want to run a series or two where we play up tempo. And when we play slow tempo, we may want to get to the line fast, then slow things down to milk the clock, as a way of avoiding the other team from subbing when we don't.
Short term, I do think we will probably need to lean more heavily on playing slow. I just don't think we have the overall talent level to try and straight out defeat a lot of the better teams. I think we have to shorten the games and use ball control to limit matchups. Long term, yes, as our talent level improves, then I think it is a better idea. It really works best when you can find a match up you like leave the same personnel on the field, and just keep exploiting it play after play. Even if they can cover it up, any adjustment they have ready may leave other holes. But if you cannot gain a matchup advantage, is it really going to help to run the plays faster?
But, even if we had been in that game, I don't think we could have beaten them, at least not by trying to outscore them. If the teams were the same as the regular season performances, maybe. But 49ers offense and D were both a lot better then when we faced them. Their secondary, with Eric Wright and Ronnie Lott at CB got a lot better as the season went on. And their pass rush was a lot better too. I don't think they could have stopped our O completely, but they would have slowed us down enough that their offense would have kept scoring, and I think we lose a shootout.
I do think we could have won, just we would have had to win it the old fashioned way. Game plan, and some ball control. But I think when our D was that bad, we had to protect them some, minimize their exposure. And controlling the clock does that.
SDfan, I agree about the running game. I think you still want to develop Rivers as a passer, but that doesn't mean you go away from the running game. I think the tempo, run/pass ratio, game plan around who to attack, all fits into the thing. Again, I am not suggesting we not go up tempo to attack teams, just that there are times when a team may want to try to play at a slower tempo and that may work out better for us. But either earlier or later in the same game, we may want to run a series or two where we play up tempo. And when we play slow tempo, we may want to get to the line fast, then slow things down to milk the clock, as a way of avoiding the other team from subbing when we don't.
Short term, I do think we will probably need to lean more heavily on playing slow. I just don't think we have the overall talent level to try and straight out defeat a lot of the better teams. I think we have to shorten the games and use ball control to limit matchups. Long term, yes, as our talent level improves, then I think it is a better idea. It really works best when you can find a match up you like leave the same personnel on the field, and just keep exploiting it play after play. Even if they can cover it up, any adjustment they have ready may leave other holes. But if you cannot gain a matchup advantage, is it really going to help to run the plays faster?
Comment