Article harshly critical of Harbaugh's offense written by Lowell Cohn

[yossarian]

But there are other reasons to think it's stupid.

COHN: 49ers keeping Kaepernick in cocoon | PressDemocrat.com

Apparently you can change offensive systems radically after three fourths of the season is done.

 

[zman1527]

In general, I agree with him. I thought the same thing watching the last game "Alex could just as easily execute this game plan."

I still wonder why we have no vertical game.

 

[Jikkle]

I partially agree with him.

I do question why we haven't been opening up the playbook and pushing the ball downfield more but it sounds like Cohn expects us to radically alter the playbook and become the Saints, Pats, or Packers which isn't and won't happen.

We're tied for second with a 5.3 YDS/A when it comes to running the ball so it's not like with CK in there we were just going to up and drop the running game and start slinging the ball around 60 times a game.

I don't see how that's a "wimp" offense just not an exciting one for those guys that love HRs in baseball, 100+ games in Basketball, and no defense played in any sports.

Cohn just comes off like another writer stuck in the 80's when the 9ers offense was king and still longing for those good ole days of Montana and Rice.

 

[Flyingiguana]

in the 80s our offense wasn't explosive like the offenses of today. it was all perfect execution. imo our offense opened up a lot more with steve young.

biggest problem for me is we dont seem to be utilizing our talent to the best of its ability.

 

[deep9er]

trying to be explosive with a new QB is asking for mistakes. it makes sense to let Kaep run the base offense and get him comfortable. actually, they ARE adding in new wrinkles whether they worked or not. it isn't purely static with the 'old' scheme.

then there is the game plan, so it depends on your specific opponent that week?

what is the definition of "opening up the offense"? what does "push it downfield" really mean? cause we have thrown passes downfield, and sometimes Kaep didn't have time to actually throw it downfield.

 

[SJVP408]

trying to be explosive with a new QB is asking for mistakes. it makes sense to let Kaep run the base offense and get him comfortable. actually, they ARE adding in new wrinkles whether they worked or not. it isn't purely static with the 'old' scheme.

then there is the game plan, so it depends on your specific opponent that week?

what is the definition of "opening up the offense"? what does "push it downfield" really mean? cause we have thrown passes downfield, and sometimes Kaep didn't have time to actually throw it downfield.

I agree. Also, was there really a need to open up the offense that much in the Saints game after the two pick 6s? Or the Rams game after the Rams had shown zilch offensively? Or the Miami game where the Dolphins showed zilch offensively?

Harbaugh knows the NFL world has his team under a microscope with the gamble of switching QBs in the middle of a championship run. He doesn't want to give the media any more ammo to question his move. If he opens it up and starts throwing 30-35 times a game, with a new QB, that's a gamble on top of a gamble and opens the door for a possible disaster.

Better to play it safe, for now, and stay within the confines of the offense that Smith was running, with a few things sprinkled in as Kaep gets accustomed to the flow of the NFL. Get the W so that the media can still question the move all they want, but not the results in the W-L column. It might just be that Kaep isn't ready to shoulder the offensive load. How many new QBs are?

The writer sounds like he expected some new offense once this "rookie" QB stepped in. No way that was going to happen when the team has Super Bowl aspirations.

 

[deep9er]

I agree. Also, was there really a need to open up the offense that much in the Saints game after the two pick 6s? Or the Rams game after the Rams had shown zilch offensively? Or the Miami game where the Dolphins showed zilch offensively?

Harbaugh knows the NFL world has his team under a microscope with the gamble of switching QBs in the middle of a championship run. He doesn't want to give the media any more ammo to question his move. If he opens it up and starts throwing 30-35 times a game, with a new QB, that's a gamble on top of a gamble and opens the door for a possible disaster.

Better to play it safe, for now, and stay within the confines of the offense that Smith was running, with a few things sprinkled in as Kaep gets accustomed to the flow of the NFL. Get the W so that the media can still question the move all they want, but not the results in the W-L column. It might just be that Kaep isn't ready to shoulder the offensive load. How many new QBs are?

The writer sounds like he expected some new offense once this "rookie" QB stepped in. No way that was going to happen when the team has Super Bowl aspirations.

yep. as it "slows down" for Kaep, the offense should get more efficient. efficient meaning more plays will be executed with more success.

there is also getting the other 10 guys in sync with Kaep, the offense isn't only about Kaep.

 

[numone9er]

In general, I agree with him. I thought the same thing watching the last game "Alex could just as easily execute this game plan."

I still wonder why we have no vertical game.

I agree. Kaep's legs and arm strength are much stronger then Smith. As long as Kaep is able to limit TO's, then it's fine with me. I also wonder what happened to this vertical game that everyone was expecting from Kaep.

 

[TobyTyler]

But there are other reasons to think it's stupid.

COHN: 49ers keeping Kaepernick in cocoon | PressDemocrat.com

Apparently you can change offensive systems radically after three fourths of the season is done.

The article is spot on.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I don't really agree with this article, at least the overarching theme. Yes, the last two games have been fairly conservative and were "Alex Smith" game plans by and large. Why might that be? Because we were facing inferior offenses. Rather than risking a loss by running a downfield passing attack, we played the way we played last year. That backfired somewhat in the Rams game, but I think it made sense from a theory standpoint in both games. We need Kap to develop, but we also need to win games. And as Bemular discussed in the other big thread, we have an entire offense that can't just change schemes and philosophy immediately.

I think we will see a much more open approach this week if we fall behind. If not, there's a good chance we'll try to grind it out a bit. And I'm fine with that.

Incidentally, it's funny that Cohn of all people takes Harbaugh at his word that he hasn't changed the offense. Cohn constantly criticizes Harbaugh for being vague and not saying anything, but he's the first to jump on an offhand comment to, say, write an entire article about. Anyone who thinks they haven't changed anything isn't paying attention. The style of play has been similar recently, but I don't believe for a minute Harbaugh is being honest when he says they havent' changed things. And I don't think Cohn does, either.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

These next 2 weeks will give us a good look at where our offense stands with Kap at the helm.

Its crunch time.

 

[yossarian]

I don't really agree with this article, at least the overarching theme. Yes, the last two games have been fairly conservative and were "Alex Smith" game plans by and large. Why might that be? Because we were facing inferior offenses. Rather than risking a loss by running a downfield passing attack, we played the way we played last year. That backfired somewhat in the Rams game, but I think it made sense from a theory standpoint in both games. We need Kap to develop, but we also need to win games. And as Bemular discussed in the other big thread, we have an entire offense that can't just change schemes and philosophy immediately.

I think we will see a much more open approach this week if we fall behind. If not, there's a good chance we'll try to grind it out a bit. And I'm fine with that.

Incidentally, it's funny that Cohn of all people takes Harbaugh at his word that he hasn't changed the offense. Cohn constantly criticizes Harbaugh for being vague and not saying anything, but he's the first to jump on an offhand comment to, say, write an entire article about. Anyone who thinks they haven't changed anything isn't paying attention. The style of play has been similar recently, but I don't believe for a minute Harbaugh is being honest when he says they havent' changed things. And I don't think Cohn does, either.

Cohn is consistent, whatever outlook allows him to be critical is the approach he will take.

 

[Yadahell]

There are some truth to the article, but I don't agree with it overall. The 49ers game plan for each particular team. They know what risks they will have to take with each opponent. The Saints and Giants called for bigger risks being taken and the 49ers were 1-1 in those games. The only real hiccup in the play-calling came in the 2 Rams games IMO. The conservative game plan still worked to an extent in those games, but a few costly mistakes accounted for the loss and a tie. I'm not complaining since the 49ers currently have the #2 seed in the NFC and have played pretty well in every game but the Giants and Minnesota games IMO.

 

[yossarian]

My original snarky comment aside, I guess I just think it's unfair to say you have to revamp the offense on the fly to the extent called for by Cohn. Matt Maiocco in his video segment was talking about how the receivers were saying it was an adjustment to get used to how quickly Kaep gets rid of the ball and how hard he throws it, I think there are other adjustments as well. They are changing it, there was a statistic that Greg Cosell cited that said they ran the pistol some ungodly percentage against the Dolphins (so Cohn is factually wrong on some counts, what a shock), and if they are playing somewhat conservatively and kaep has the amazing throw, amazing run, etc., a couple more times a game that's good while the offense slowly changes. IF they get a bye there will be more extensive changes I'm sure.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Roman vs Belicheck. Color me concerned.

 

[TobyTyler]

Roman vs Belicheck. Color me concerned.

And then toss in Brady. Yikes! But they did beat GB up there so you never know.

 

[MHSL82]

Apparently (according to Cohn), if you trail two tied players in rating, you are second place, not third. Interesting. LOL.

 

[Bemular]

Apparently (according to Cohn), if you trail two tied players in rating, you are second place, not third. Interesting. LOL.

Actually, because of measurement parameters, Cohn is technically correct. It is known as a dense ranking order.

 

[MHSL82]

Actually, because of measurement parameters, Cohn is technically correct. It is known as a dense ranking order.

Ah, I learn something everyday. But Cohn's still wrong, because RG3 is not tied with Tom Brady, he's 0.1 higher (rounding up may contribute, but higher is higher). So there, take that, Cohn!!!

 

[NinerSickness]

So there, take that, Cohn!!!

[YOUTUBE]GmZwkxLL7JI&playnext=1&list=PLAF48084E62E56500[/YOUTUBE]