Alex finally gets consecutive year in same offense

[Bemular]

and jimmy raye took half of that time deciding what play to run...

And waking-up

 

[JMedlock5186]

Jimmy raye is a joke for sure.

 

[mem49er]

and jimmy raye took half of that time deciding what play to run...

I know you're being facetious but it's also very valid. The playcall took so long that Alex never had time to look over the damn defense. Not sure why, "Gore up the middle" should take longer than 2 seconds.

 

[I_am_1z]

He was in the same offense two years in a row with Jimmy Raye; just because Mike Johnson became the playcaller doesn't mean they installed an entirely new offense.

This is a complete overreaction to our passing game. We went up against the worst passing D in the league last year (in the Packers) and a decimated Detroit Lions secondary that ranked 22nd last year. Next week we have any other easy assignment against the Vikes. Wait until after the Jets (week four) to see if the passing game is legit or not.

 

[mem49er]

He was in the same offense two years in a row with Jimmy Raye; just because Mike Johnson became the playcaller doesn't mean they installed an entirely new offense.

This is a complete overreaction to our passing game. We went up against the worst passing D in the league last year (in the Packers) and a decimated Detroit Lions secondary that ranked 22nd last year. Next week we have any other easy assignment against the Vikes. Wait until after the Jets (week four) to see if the passing game is legit or not.

I understand your sentiment but pretty much disagree. We're not NE, GB or NO, but it's not just our numbers but the execution. We have looked very efficient, consistent and better yet, unpredictable. If the guys stop with the dropsies, the passing O will be damn tough coupled with our ground game.

And to call Jimmy Raye's system an NFL offense is offensive; Mike Johnson may not have reworked everything but I'm sure a good bit changed.

 

[Bemular]

He was in the same offense two years in a row with Jimmy Raye; just because Mike Johnson became the playcaller doesn't mean they installed an entirely new offense.

This is a complete overreaction to our passing game. We went up against the worst passing D in the league last year (in the Packers) and a decimated Detroit Lions secondary that ranked 22nd last year. Next week we have any other easy assignment against the Vikes. Wait until after the Jets (week four) to see if the passing game is legit or not.

One thought and two questions:

First, to say that Jimmy Raye had an offense is the same as saying Tim Tebow is a QB.

Second, how is GB's passing defense doing THIS year - check and get back to me.

Third, how is anyone overreacting to our passing game?

 

[Bemular]

I understand your sentiment but pretty much disagree. We're not NE, GB or NO, but it's not just our numbers but the execution. We have looked very efficient, consistent and better yet, unpredictable. If the guys stop with the dropsies, the passing O will be damn tough coupled with our ground game.

And to call Jimmy Raye's system an NFL offense is offensive; Mike Johnson may not have reworked everything but I'm sure a good bit changed.

Sounds like Mem & Bem are on the same page

 

[Giantsmojo]

One thought and two questions:

First, to say that Jimmy Raye had an offense is the same as saying Tim Tebow is a QB.

Second, how is GB's passing defense doing THIS year - check and get back to me.

Third, how is anyone overreacting to our passing game?

Cutler threw for 127 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT and sacked 7 times.

 

[MHSL82]

Why are some people so debbie downer after two wins against good to great teams? Not just this board but other boards and article comments. I don't see anybody here over-reacting, not even me, a self-professed Alex Smith fan.

I think we all like to see an efficient, winning offense, and if we win, none of us should worry about who it's against defensive-wise if we dominate them. We can project to the future and if we see we're likely to struggle against better defenses, that'd be a concern. We will get better over the course of the year. But as far as looking back at wins and saying, "well, they weren't that great," none of that should be done. I'm all for toning it down to reasonable highs and lows, but I think we're already pretty even keel on our enthusiasm for the offense.

It means more to beat a Green Bay offense, so defense > offense, but with our previous years' struggles on offense, I think we are all happy with beating the 32nd or 1st defensive team in the league. We have no control over whether we play a great or poor defense nor when we play them. 'Wait and see' is a great approach, but don't kill our reasonable buzz.

 

[mem49er]

Sounds like Mem & Bem are on the same page

Not the first time, sir.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Cutler threw for 127 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT and sacked 7 times.

I'm just gonna post once in this thread and leave it, since people aren't allowed to have discussions about Alex on this board.

I don't like that argument. First of all, Chicago's OL is, bar none, the worst in the NFL. Second, Jay Cutler routinely implodes when he's expected to do well. His stats don't prove that GB has a good defense. Last year Cutler had 8.5 QBR against the 28th ranked defense, 26.7 QBR against the 32 ranked defense, and 20.9 against the 24th ranked defense. There's no correlation between his performance and how good of a defense he's facing.

Against GB we had wide open WRs all day. Anyone with any semblance of knowledge of the game can tell that it was easy pickings all day. How wide open was Randy Moss on his TD?

As for the Lions, they were without their two starting CBs (Houston, Bentley) and one of their starting safeties (Delmas) - and it's not like their starters were anything special to begin with.

Look, Smith was good yesterday. Possibly really good. He was efficient and took what the defense was giving him. And for the first time I saw him making calls at the LOS. But like 1z said, let's see the season play out. The defenses we just played are horrible.

And I'm out.

 

[threelittleturds]

Why are some people so debbie downer after two wins against good to great teams? Not just this board but other boards and article comments. I don't see anybody here over-reacting, not even me, a self-professed Alex Smith fan.

I think we all like to see an efficient, winning offense, and if we win, none of us should worry about who it's against defensive-wise if we dominate them. We can project to the future and if we see we're likely to struggle against better defenses, that'd be a concern. We will get better over the course of the year. But as far as looking back at wins and saying, "well, they weren't that great," none of that should be done. I'm all for toning it down to reasonable highs and lows, but I think we're already pretty even keel on our enthusiasm for the offense.

It means more to beat a Green Bay offense, so defense > offense, but with our previous years' struggles on offense, I think we are all happy with beating the 32nd or 1st defensive team in the league. We have no control over whether we play a great or poor defense nor when we play them. 'Wait and see' is a great approach, but don't kill our reasonable buzz.

My main disappointment in the offense is that Walker keeps getting thrown to. Two games, 4 targets, 1 catch. Forget him, leave him behind.

It's time to get Moss and Manningham more involved. Moss has caught everything the 49ers have thrown to him or drawn PI. Manningham is a very sexy 7 catches in 8 targets.

Sure, bottom line I'm happy that they are winning. I just want to see more Moss and Manningham.

 

[Jikkle]

My main disappointment in the offense is that Walker keeps getting thrown to. Two games, 4 targets, 1 catch. Forget him, leave him behind.

It's time to get Moss and Manningham more involved. Moss has caught everything the 49ers have thrown to him or drawn PI. Manningham is a very sexy 7 catches in 8 targets.

Sure, bottom line I'm happy that they are winning. I just want to see more Moss and Manningham.

I believe we'll see more of them going forward because due to our first two opponents being high powered offenses I think offensively our goal was to control the clock, not risk turnovers, and limit the chances that GB and Det had as much as possible.

As far as Smith is concerned I agree with Clyde in that it's still early and let's see how Smith does against some of the stronger defenses.

Though I'm inclined to believe the Smith we're seeing now is what we'll see throughout the year. The second year in the system and upgraded weapons it was only natural to assume he would have a better year than last season.

The biggest benefit of him being in the same system is one of his biggest assets is his IQ and now he can better utilize it and he should improve in that area the more he's in the system.

 

[Flyingiguana]

the biggest thing is smith looks much more comfortable running the offense, which should be expected. being in the same system for 2 years in a row must be like heaven.

 

[threelittleturds]

the biggest thing is smith looks much more comfortable running the offense, which should be expected. being in the same system for 2 years in a row must be like heaven.

I keep repeating myself, but, it wasn't just Smith switching coordinators. Everyone on offense was getting held back by that... look how much better the offensive line is entering its 2nd year under the same system and it all starts up front. That leads to Smith being more comfortable and not getting KO'd from the blindside before he even reaches his 5 step drop.

Crabtree is playing much better with his 2nd year in the system, and VD has been a beast since he felt comfortable in the system late last season. As a more vested vet his learning curve was a bit shorter than Crabs.

Finally, adding Moss and Manningham are huge for Smith. A lot of us always argued that he needed better coaching and better weapons, and now he has both and is doing really well. It's nice to be vindicated on that, but the negatives about Smith that are pointed out on this board are real. I'm just glad that the positives of great coaching, better weapons, and growth in a good system outweigh Smith's negatives.

 

[MHSL82]

Finally, adding Moss and Manningham are huge for Smith. A lot of us always argued that he needed better coaching and better weapons, and now he has both and is doing really well. It's nice to be vindicated on that, but the negatives about Smith that are pointed out on this board are real. I'm just glad that the positives of great coaching, better weapons, and growth in a good system outweigh Smith's negatives.

Slightly off topic to this thread, but on-point to this post... I wonder if we are taking advantage of the threat Moss and Manningham pose for these first few games and then when people figure that they are decoys, we then strike. Then, teams, later in the season, have more to worry about because we've shown we can do well with and without throwing to them.

Of course, there is a good argument that you use your weapons early and often, both early in the season and early in the game. More reps, better chemistry. But given that there was so much ado about showing nothing in the preseason and the fact that, partly if not mostly due to the circumstances, we revealed more and more as the season progressed. All teams do that to some extent, but Harbaugh and Roman milk everything they can to have a competitive advantage. Heck, look at the injury reports. GB seemed like a team where we'd need to go all-out to keep up, but with our defense we didn't need to - though I loved getting Moss a TD - we, at least, could delay a few articles on Moss not being involved.

It sounds pretty obvious what I stated, but I said I wondered (rather than making a statement), because there is a chance that we have all those plays called and considered to be revealed now, but the game situation didn't call for it or Alex didn't feel comfortable pulling the trigger or didn't see it.

 

[SY8goat]

Why are some people so debbie downer after two wins against good to great teams? Not just this board but other boards and article comments. I don't see anybody here over-reacting, not even me, a self-professed Alex Smith fan.

I think we all like to see an efficient, winning offense, and if we win, none of us should worry about who it's against defensive-wise if we dominate them. We can project to the future and if we see we're likely to struggle against better defenses, that'd be a concern. We will get better over the course of the year. But as far as looking back at wins and saying, "well, they weren't that great," none of that should be done. I'm all for toning it down to reasonable highs and lows, but I think we're already pretty even keel on our enthusiasm for the offense.

It means more to beat a Green Bay offense, so defense > offense, but with our previous years' struggles on offense, I think we are all happy with beating the 32nd or 1st defensive team in the league. We have no control over whether we play a great or poor defense nor when we play them. 'Wait and see' is a great approach, but don't kill our reasonable buzz.

Because those people were very wrong. They're arm chair QB gurus. They know everything. Legends in their own mind.

Bill Walsh made Montana and Young. Now, Harbaugh is making Alex Smith (kap n Tolzien too.)

 

[BINGO]

Kurt Warner's Top 5

The first time I have seen Alex Smith ranked # 1 on this list and I have been watching this show for years. I just saw it on TV not yet posted on the web.

 

[MHSL82]

Kurt Warner's Top 5

The first time I have seen Alex Smith ranked # 1 on this list and I have been watching this show for years. I just saw it on TV not yet posted on the web.

NFL Videos: Kurt Warner's top QBs

 

[Geraint]

Third, how is anyone overreacting to our passing game?

Saying something good about the QB is overreacting on this forum