Good post and I agree both of those issues need to get fixed. The rush defense certainly concerns me with this 3-4 defense. Woods should get more work as he's the only one that's been effective, course he's really big so wearing down would be a concern. Pete will get the run game in gear IMO, likely see some results next week against the Falcons.What we're getting from Geno is pretty much what most of us, if not all of us expected... Journeyman type of productivity... Sometimes he will play well enough but then he will play poorly and remind us why he's just a journeyman QB in this league... I don't think this is shocking to any of us...
What I'm most disappointed about are two things:
- Defense: What is up with our rush defense? We seem to just be getting gashed over and over... P. Ford looks out of place in this defense... He's not plugging holes like he should be doing against the run... In fact, Al Woods is the only guy up front plugging holes, which allows our LB's to make more tackles up in the box... But when Jefferson, Ford, etc aren't plugging the holes or staying engaged, while controlling the OL, it's allowing their OL to get to our 2nd tier easier forcing our LB's to have to make tackles 4-6 yards downfield... We're ranked 26th in the league right now with rush defense. Our pass defense isn't any better... Right now, i would've thought our defense would be playing a bit better than they are... We dodged a bullet against the Broncos but seems like the Bronco's were able to move the ball against us pretty easily at times... 49ers controlled the LOS on both sides of the ball... They out physical'd us in all facets.
- Running Game: Where is our commitment to this? (See below): We're even behind the 4 teams that have only played 1 game... We're 2nd to last in the league in attempts... The last place team is Tennessee which has only played 1 game so far... Safe to say that they will leap frog us tonight.. With us investing into our RB's like we have, it's said that we're not utilizing them like we thought we would... View attachment 308815