GDT: 49ERS VS SEAHAWKS

[generaldreedle]

Greetings everyone, I decided to come back to the boards after a long hiatus where the team was terrible. As some may remember, I've lived up here in Seattle since 1988 and strangely enough don't feel like shoving a fork into my eyes after this game. Here are my thoughts
1. I think that this is the type of game any young team needs to have, a pressure playoff type of game, and from what I read of the accounts in the locker room after they were not down hearted or devastated, they're confident and they know what they have to do to get better. They got a taste in the regular season of what playoff football is like, they'll do better next time.
2. They went into this game without their best two pass catchers, and a tight end who was also integral to their running game, their starting tackles were back for the first time and clearly rusty, and they had a kicker off the street. And despite all that they should have won the game in OT on the kick. I can live with that, objectively, the Seahawks have the best or 2nd best qb in the game and Clowney played out of his mind. And despite all that, the Seahawks got 21 of their 27 points off turnovers.
3. The receivers on the field- good god, Samuel did well, but the INT was on Bourne I thought, he could have made that catch, and the Pettis drops really hurt. I don't remember Pettis doing this at UW so I don't know what's going on, but this team is not going to go far without KIttle and Sanders on the field apparently.

4. Jimmy G-- I have to remind myself that this guy has less NFL starts than Lamar Jackson, and barely over a full season. It took Matt Ryan a full season with Shanahan before he understood things and I am going to think Jimmy will continue to get better. Did he have a great game? NO, did he put the team on his back, clearly not. YOu know what? Neither did Russell Wilson his first season up here either. He makes a few head scratching throws every game, and seemed to have the yips in overtime, but I'm going to wait until the end of the year before making any rash trade/cut him opinions. I think that's really premature. He led them to a couple of scores, including one to tie the game, and let them down in overtime that they might have won if he makes the field goal, and on the drive to tie it they might have scored a TD but for the drop.


Anyway, it's great that the team is on the right path, and despite all the injuries was in a great position to win. That's my story and I;m sticking to it.

[CrimsonCrew]

Hes also making his 19th career start, coming back off a major injury. I'll agree he hasnt looked great, but not ready to close the book on him yet.

QBs hit a point where I think they show who they really are. With Kaeptard, it was the delay of game on 3rd & 1 with 3 time outs in the NFCCG for me (football ret**ded). With Alex, it was a slant against the Seahawks that hit the ground like 3 feet in front of the WR (weak arm).

Jimmy may have shown me who he is today. He's just not a calm, accurate QB. And I now question his arm strength. I think it'd be unrealistically optimistic to think he's going to change. JMO.

I was thinking about this post, and it got me wondering if you've hit that point with Goff yet. I know you've been a pretty strong advocate of his at times, and have repeatedly cautioned that we needed to be patient. Well, here we are four years and 47 starts in, and he looks worse than Garoppolo. Goff is on pace for career lows in completion %, TDs, YPA, and rating (not including his seven awful starts as a rookie). He's on pace to crush his career career highs in INTs and fumbles, and to be near that number for sacks. To the extent that anyone considers QBR a worthwhile stat, he's broken 65 once, against the Bengals.

[wco81]

More criticism coming in that 49ers should have played for a tie. They had a 3 and out which was 3 incompletions so they could have burned clock.

Tie would be better for trying to get HFA than a loss.

[CrimsonCrew]

More criticism coming in that 49ers should have played for a tie. They had a 3 and out which was 3 incompletions so they could have burned clock.

Tie would be better for trying to get HFA than a loss.

I think that's a fair criticism. It's pretty inexcusable that we got the ball back with like 1:50 remaining, our opponent had no TOs, and they went on to win. And a tie would have kept us two games ahead. We should have run at least one or two running plays or very safe pass plays like a screen, see what we get, and keep the clock moving. Our kicker was in a puddle on the sideline. Our offense had been inept. The odds of driving the field and winning at that point were slim. I understand the reluctance to play for a tie, but you can still play to win while making it much harder for the opponent to do so.

[Samurai]

More criticism coming in that 49ers should have played for a tie. They had a 3 and out which was 3 incompletions so they could have burned clock.

Tie would be better for trying to get HFA than a loss.

According to PFF, the odds of 3 straight incompletions in that last 3 and out drive was only 12%, so from an analytics standpoint they weren't bad plays to call. Shanahan said the first two passes were designed to be very conservative, underneath routes. He said the first pass was tipped and the second one was "a little more disappointing."

But PFF did not take into account that Dante Pettis was one of those receivers. I guess when a short pass hits you between the numbers, that is "disappointing."

[CrimsonCrew]

More criticism coming in that 49ers should have played for a tie. They had a 3 and out which was 3 incompletions so they could have burned clock.

Tie would be better for trying to get HFA than a loss.

According to PFF, the odds of 3 straight incompletions in that last 3 and out drive was only 12%, so from an analytics standpoint they weren't bad plays to call. Shanahan said the first two passes were designed to be very conservative, underneath routes. He said the first pass was tipped and the second one was "a little more disappointing."

But PFF did not take into account that Dante Pettis was one of those receivers. I guess when a short pass hits you between the numbers, that is "disappointing."

Yeah, league-wide statistics don't necessarily apply in a game in which Garoppolo completed 52.2% of his passes and was sacked five times. In his final 14 passes, only one was a completion to a WR.

[wco81]

I mean if the 49ers lose at NO or Green Bay in the playoffs and they missed having HFA by 1 game, I guess the decision will come back to haunt them.

[NinerSickness]

Hes also making his 19th career start, coming back off a major injury. I'll agree he hasnt looked great, but not ready to close the book on him yet.

QBs hit a point where I think they show who they really are. With Kaeptard, it was the delay of game on 3rd & 1 with 3 time outs in the NFCCG for me (football ret**ded). With Alex, it was a slant against the Seahawks that hit the ground like 3 feet in front of the WR (weak arm).

Jimmy may have shown me who he is today. He's just not a calm, accurate QB. And I now question his arm strength. I think it'd be unrealistically optimistic to think he's going to change. JMO.

I was thinking about this post, and it got me wondering if you've hit that point with Goff yet. I know you've been a pretty strong advocate of his at times, and have repeatedly cautioned that we needed to be patient. Well, here we are four years and 47 starts in, and he looks worse than Garoppolo. Goff is on pace for career lows in completion %, TDs, YPA, and rating (not including his seven awful starts as a rookie). He's on pace to crush his career career highs in INTs and fumbles, and to be near that number for sacks. To the extent that anyone considers QBR a worthwhile stat, he's broken 65 once, against the Bengals.

Goff had an near-MVP-caliber season last year, but to be honest, I haven't watched him enough lately to really have the same kind of epiphany about him.

I hope I'm wrong about Jimmy and he does keep progressing (QBs usually don't), but he seems like Matt Stafford minus the arm to me at this point. Pretty good but not much better than average.

[Samurai]

More criticism coming in that 49ers should have played for a tie. They had a 3 and out which was 3 incompletions so they could have burned clock.

Tie would be better for trying to get HFA than a loss.

According to PFF, the odds of 3 straight incompletions in that last 3 and out drive was only 12%, so from an analytics standpoint they weren't bad plays to call. Shanahan said the first two passes were designed to be very conservative, underneath routes. He said the first pass was tipped and the second one was "a little more disappointing."

But PFF did not take into account that Dante Pettis was one of those receivers. I guess when a short pass hits you between the numbers, that is "disappointing."

Yeah, league-wide statistics don't necessarily apply in a game in which Garoppolo completed 52.2% of his passes and was sacked five times. In his final 14 passes, only one was a completion to a WR.

Well, if the 9 dropped passes had been caught he would have completed 72% of his passes. And once Sanders went out, he only had one WR to throw to (Pettis, Bourne, and Goodwin did not play like NFL-caliber WR's). In the 2 drives with Sanders, Jimmy averaged a very solid 8.5 yards per attempt and scored 10 points. In the 13 drives without Sanders, he averaged a pitiful 4.5 yards per attempt and a whopping 6 points. He did not have enough weapons without Kittle and Sanders.

[I_am_1z]

According to PFF, the odds of 3 straight incompletions in that last 3 and out drive was only 12%, so from an analytics standpoint they weren't bad plays to call. Shanahan said the first two passes were designed to be very conservative, underneath routes. He said the first pass was tipped and the second one was "a little more disappointing."

But PFF did not take into account that Dante Pettis was one of those receivers. I guess when a short pass hits you between the numbers, that is "disappointing."

Yeah, league-wide statistics don't necessarily apply in a game in which Garoppolo completed 52.2% of his passes and was sacked five times. In his final 14 passes, only one was a completion to a WR.

Well, if the 9 dropped passes had been caught he would have completed 72% of his passes. And once Sanders went out, he only had one WR to throw to (Pettis, Bourne, and Goodwin did not play like NFL-caliber WR's). In the 2 drives with Sanders, Jimmy averaged a very solid 8.5 yards per attempt and scored 10 points. In the 13 drives without Sanders, he averaged a pitiful 4.5 yards per attempt and a whopping 6 points. He did not have enough weapons without Kittle and Sanders.

I like how you're ignoring all the drops the defense had. Grapps should have had at least 5 picks.

[Samurai]

Yeah, league-wide statistics don't necessarily apply in a game in which Garoppolo completed 52.2% of his passes and was sacked five times. In his final 14 passes, only one was a completion to a WR.

Well, if the 9 dropped passes had been caught he would have completed 72% of his passes. And once Sanders went out, he only had one WR to throw to (Pettis, Bourne, and Goodwin did not play like NFL-caliber WR's). In the 2 drives with Sanders, Jimmy averaged a very solid 8.5 yards per attempt and scored 10 points. In the 13 drives without Sanders, he averaged a pitiful 4.5 yards per attempt and a whopping 6 points. He did not have enough weapons without Kittle and Sanders.

I like how you're ignoring all the drops the defense had. Grapps should have had at least 5 picks.

Because that isn't accurate. Several were drops on tipped balls that should have been caught by Niner receivers; if they are caught, then the pick would never have occurred. And two were back-to-back; logically if the first one was intercepted, then the second one right after would never have occurred because Seattle would have already had the ball.

[CrimsonCrew]

According to PFF, the odds of 3 straight incompletions in that last 3 and out drive was only 12%, so from an analytics standpoint they weren't bad plays to call. Shanahan said the first two passes were designed to be very conservative, underneath routes. He said the first pass was tipped and the second one was "a little more disappointing."

But PFF did not take into account that Dante Pettis was one of those receivers. I guess when a short pass hits you between the numbers, that is "disappointing."

Yeah, league-wide statistics don't necessarily apply in a game in which Garoppolo completed 52.2% of his passes and was sacked five times. In his final 14 passes, only one was a completion to a WR.

Well, if the 9 dropped passes had been caught he would have completed 72% of his passes. And once Sanders went out, he only had one WR to throw to (Pettis, Bourne, and Goodwin did not play like NFL-caliber WR's). In the 2 drives with Sanders, Jimmy averaged a very solid 8.5 yards per attempt and scored 10 points. In the 13 drives without Sanders, he averaged a pitiful 4.5 yards per attempt and a whopping 6 points. He did not have enough weapons without Kittle and Sanders.

I didn't throw the completion percentage out as a criticism of Garoppolo, per se. It certainly wasn't all on him. The OL was a disaster, and I can't recall seeing a game with so many outright drops. Though he did have his share of bad decisions and bad throws as well.
But I don't think "88% chance of completing one of those balls" necessarily applies in this case. If anything, the play of the offense after Sanders' departure dramatically underscores how the probability was almost certainly much lower. If my math is correct, Garoppolo was 8 for 12 in the first two drives, and 16 for 34 (47%) after that. He also took four of the sacks after that. So on 38 dropbacks, only 16 led to completed passes (42%). Though, ironically, as long as he held onto the ball, a sack would have been a good thing in terms of our chances of winning.

[CrimsonCrew]

Well, if the 9 dropped passes had been caught he would have completed 72% of his passes. And once Sanders went out, he only had one WR to throw to (Pettis, Bourne, and Goodwin did not play like NFL-caliber WR's). In the 2 drives with Sanders, Jimmy averaged a very solid 8.5 yards per attempt and scored 10 points. In the 13 drives without Sanders, he averaged a pitiful 4.5 yards per attempt and a whopping 6 points. He did not have enough weapons without Kittle and Sanders.

I like how you're ignoring all the drops the defense had. Grapps should have had at least 5 picks.

Because that isn't accurate. Several were drops on tipped balls that should have been caught by Niner receivers; if they are caught, then the pick would never have occurred. And two were back-to-back; logically if the first one was intercepted, then the second one right after would never have occurred because Seattle would have already had the ball.

You're technically correct that if the Hawks intercepted the first awful pass on the final regulation drive, they wouldn't have had an opportunity to almost intercept the very next pass. But both were still terrible decisions that nearly cost us the game. And if we're playing revisionist history, the team wouldn't have kicked the FG on the opening drive because there was a bad INT overturned by encroachment. The interception to Bourne was a catchable ball, and Bourne probably should have had it, but it wasn't a good throw. High throws have a tendency to get tipped, and that's what happened.

[generaldreedle]

Nine dropped balls for 108 yards Shanahan said today. Jimmy didn't have a great game, few people on offense did. I also think quarterbacks do develop in how they see the field and pocket presence, or at least they can. I get the criticism of him but I think it's really foolish for some people to say this is who he is permanently.


Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[CrimsonCrew]

Nine dropped balls for 108 yards Shanahan said today. Jimmy didn't have a great game, few people on offense did. I also think quarterbacks do develop in how they see the field and pocket presence, or at least they can. I get the criticism of him but I think it's really foolish for some people to say this is who he is permanently.


Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

It was a rough game for our pass catchers.

In reviewing the play-by-play and based on my recollection, Goodwin had a ball bounce off his hands on the first drive on a ball that would have converted a third down inside the Hawks' ten. I wouldn't really consider that a "drop." He was totally outstretched and just barely got his hands on it, but if he was like an inch taller, that's probably a catch and first-and-goal.

On third-and-three of the fourth drive, Pettis didn't make a catch. I don't think that was a drop, but I honestly can't recall.

On the sixth drive, following the Hawks' fumble-return TD, Juszczyk dropped a deep ball on 2nd and 9. It was a bit of a tough ball, but you expect the best receiving FB in the game to catch it. On the very next play (after a McGlinchey false start made it 3rd and 14), Pettis had a first down catch in his hands and let the defender knock it out. Garoppolo might have been a hair late in delivering the ball, but he had a defender jumping and waited a split second to get a clear throwing lane (that's how it looked to me, anyway).

On the second drive of the second half, Bourne let the INT bounce off his hands. I watched that one again in the highlights, and it is a drop. Not an easy catch, perhaps, but one he's got to make.

I believe Samuel's drop came on a first down play on the fourth drive of the second half. He looked upfield too soon and just flat out dropped it.

On the fifth drive, Garoppolo hit Bourne in stride on a pass that very well could have been a TD on third-and-eight from the Seattle 21. They settled for a FG.

On the final Niners' drive in OT, Pettis dropped another one on third-and-ten.

That's seven drops, so maybe I'm missing a couple. Part of what killed was that two of those were on third down, and they were good passes by Garoppolo. Combined with the INT, that's three drives that just ended on what should have been positive plays. It was rough.

Having said ALL of that, Garoppolo still spent much of the game looking flustered, and was repeatedly off the mark with his throws.

[Cactus Jack]

Having said ALL of that, Garoppolo still spent much of the game looking flustered, and was repeatedly off the mark with his throws.

This.

I re-watched the game last night. I'm not throwing shade but Jimmy was all over the place (Throws). I mostly credit Clowney (and our D-line), who dominated from start to finish. Clowney was wrecking **** all game. They couldn't block him.

There we're plenty of dropped passes throughout the game. But, a lot of those drops we're caused by poor ball location. High/Low throws.

He was throwing a High Ball all night (e.g. The Diggs pick).

[NinerSickness]

Having said ALL of that, Garoppolo still spent much of the game looking flustered, and was repeatedly off the mark with his throws.

This.

I re-watched the game last night. I'm not throwing shade but Jimmy was all over the place (Throws). I mostly credit Clowney (and our D-line), who dominated from start to finish. Clowney was wrecking **** all game. They couldn't block him.

There we're plenty of dropped passes throughout the game. But, a lot of those drops we're caused by poor ball location. High/Low throws.

He was throwing a High Ball all night (e.g. The Diggs pick).

Here are my biggest worries for the 49ers.

1. Staley isn't that good any more, and good DL are going to expose him (again).
2. McGlinchey was never that good, and good DL are going to expose him (again).
3. Bosa started on a hot streak against weak competition but ultimately won't be one of those game-changing DL.
4. Jimmy is a mediocre QB who can't win a SB without an unreal supporting cast.

I think the thing that kills teams more than anything is being unrealistic about what players are going to do in the biggest games because of being fooled by beating up on s**tty competition. There's nothing worse than sticking with guys who dominate s**tty competition but can't do anything in big games (see Jeff Garcia).