LaMichael James

[deep9er]

My primary objection to the pick was that we had Hunter, and I really like Hunter. I didn't see much of a role for James. James settled in and played pretty well when given a chance last year, but he wasn't as electric as I had hoped. And he just doesn't fit our current offense. I'm all for trying to work in our smaller backs, but we suck at running outside and on screens, primarily because of the blocking. That's arguably the single biggest area for improvement in the final weeks of the season IMO.

that's fine, and IMO the biggest area is pass protect. with all this shuffling going on, they'll have to get in sync for stunts. individually they'll probably be ok for the most part, but when the D mixes it up.......

 

[Crimsoncrew]

that's fine, and IMO the biggest area is pass protect. with all this shuffling going on, they'll have to get in sync for stunts. individually they'll probably be ok for the most part, but when the D mixes it up.......

Biggest area for improvement? Or biggest area of concern? No argument as to the latter, but that's different from what I was saying. And in terms of the time frame, in theory our starters should all be healthy for the playoffs.

 

[Hangman]

http://www.49ers.com/video/videos/Micd-Up-RB-LaMichael-James/f4c3d5fc-4b48-4a46-a42a-54b4cc0ef79f

He was complaining about food poisoning in the game. That does take a lot out of a person. Maybe should not have played, but who would have returned kicks?

 

[Reefer]

I think James' strength in our offense would be similar to Sproles, in catching some screens, swing passes, wheel routes. The saints/Brees do such a great job of when there is nothing downfield they hit a back for a 5 yard gain as kinda of safety valve. I know Brees can't take off like Kaep when there is good coverage, but I've seen James and Gore open a few times over the past month and Kaep doesn't even look at them. I'm not gonna put that all on Kaep, I think it has to do with the offensive system as Gore's rec. with Harbaugh, 17, 28, 15 are nothing compared to pre Harbaugh, 61, 53, 43, 52, 46. I know that a lot of those were checkdowns and weak WRs and now instead of checking down Kaep may scramble. Utilizing the RBs in the passing game would benefit everyone and I hope we see some growth in that aspect of the offense and get James/Gore/Hunter a little involved.

Also did anyone see something about the 49ers not having the type of lineman that would be good at running screen plays? I would think Staley, Davis and Boone would all be good at getting downfield and blocking. Am I wrong in that assessment?

 

[RedneckNiner]

More importantly we Have Lattimore next year James is expendable Hope he breaks some punt returns and looks good so he can be good trade bait.

 

[deep9er]

I think James' strength in our offense would be similar to Sproles, in catching some screens, swing passes, wheel routes. The saints/Brees do such a great job of when there is nothing downfield they hit a back for a 5 yard gain as kinda of safety valve. I know Brees can't take off like Kaep when there is good coverage, but I've seen James and Gore open a few times over the past month and Kaep doesn't even look at them. I'm not gonna put that all on Kaep, I think it has to do with the offensive system as Gore's rec. with Harbaugh, 17, 28, 15 are nothing compared to pre Harbaugh, 61, 53, 43, 52, 46. I know that a lot of those were checkdowns and weak WRs and now instead of checking down Kaep may scramble. Utilizing the RBs in the passing game would benefit everyone and I hope we see some growth in that aspect of the offense and get James/Gore/Hunter a little involved.

Also did anyone see something about the 49ers not having the type of lineman that would be good at running screen plays? I would think Staley, Davis and Boone would all be good at getting downfield and blocking. Am I wrong in that assessment?

not necessarily good at it? getting to the second level via run blocking, isn't the same as getting outside on screens?

not totally against screens, but besides linemen, Kaep's strength is throwing it forward. does he have the consistency to throw screen passes? would we be taking advantage of his passing 'strength' if we run too many screens?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Maiocco with some good points in this article, many of which have been raised on this board/in this thread:

Why James can't contribute on 49ers offense | CSN Bay Area

The big question I have is whether it is the blockers, or the blocking schemes/coaching/practice preparation that are mucking out our outside running/screen plays. On outside runs, I have to question our scheme. Despite their size, we have a pretty athletic OL. They do well pulling and blocking on the second level. I don't see any reason why they would inherently struggle blocking on outside runs.

On screens, it seems like a technique issue. But again, I've got to think coaching is the primary problem. If you watch good screen teams like NO, they really sell the screens. They engage the guy in front of them, make it look as if they are beaten, and then slip out and head upfield. It's basically the same concept as the effective goal-line play to the TE where the TE initially engages, sells run, the slips out for a pass when the guy who should be covering him commits to the run. Our guys seem to forget the first step when blocking for screens, immediately racing outside and then upfield to look for DBs and LBs to block. The problem is that the DL realizes immediately that it is either a screen or an outside play and ends up between the RB and his blockers. Our guys also have a tendency to sprint downfield instead of slowing down a bit and actually making the block against quicker defensive players. This should be a relatively easy fix, but we haven't achieved it yet.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

not necessarily good at it? getting to the second level via run blocking, isn't the same as getting outside on screens?

not totally against screens, but besides linemen, Kaep's strength is throwing it forward. does he have the consistency to throw screen passes? would we be taking advantage of his passing 'strength' if we run too many screens?

Yes. We have been running screen passes lately, and Kap has had no trouble getting the ball to the RBs. Our blocking has just been awful.

Not really sure what you're talking about in terms of passing "strength." Offenses have to be multiple, as Cossell likes to say. You can't just run one type of play. No one is suggesting we run screens with the frequency of NO or NE. Just that we run a few a game.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

On screens, it seems like a technique issue. But again, I've got to think coaching is the primary problem. If you watch good screen teams like NO, they really sell the screens. They engage the guy in front of them, make it look as if they are beaten, and then slip out and head upfield. It's basically the same concept as the effective goal-line play to the TE where the TE initially engages, sells run, the slips out for a pass when the guy who should be covering him commits to the run. Our guys seem to forget the first step when blocking for screens, immediately racing outside and then upfield to look for DBs and LBs to block. The problem is that the DL realizes immediately that it is either a screen or an outside play and ends up between the RB and his blockers. Our guys also have a tendency to sprint downfield instead of slowing down a bit and actually making the block against quicker defensive players. This should be a relatively easy fix, but we haven't achieved it yet.

I wanted to tweak the above slightly, but ran out of time to edit. The key to the screen game is getting the DL to commit to either rushing the passer or playing the inside run if it's play action. The OL should only move outside after the DL commits. Our guys seem to miss that crucial step. As a result, the DL hasn't committed to moving straight ahead, and simply follows the OL down the LOS. This puts them in perfect position to make the stop for no gain or a loss.

 

[deep9er]

Yes. We have been running screen passes lately, and Kap has had no trouble getting the ball to the RBs. Our blocking has just been awful.

Not really sure what you're talking about in terms of passing "strength." Offenses have to be multiple, as Cossell likes to say. You can't just run one type of play. No one is suggesting we run screens with the frequency of NO or NE. Just that we run a few a game.

so if the blocking is awful, why even call a screen? if Kaep CAN throw it, but the blocking fails, why call it?

by passing strength, referring to what Kaep does better.........throwing downfield. if we have a QB who is better 'flinging' it, we're not taking advantage by throwing screens. not to mention Davis and Manningham are better running downfield routes?

anyway, not totally against screens, but certainly not pushing for it.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

so if the blocking is awful, why even call a screen? if Kaep CAN throw it, but the blocking fails, why call it?

by passing strength, referring to what Kaep does better.........throwing downfield. if we have a QB who is better 'flinging' it, we're not taking advantage by throwing screens. not to mention Davis and Manningham are better running downfield routes?

anyway, not totally against screens, but certainly not pushing for it.

Your first paragraph - and frankly the entire post - is an argument to not work on your weaknesses. That doesn't cut it in the NFL. As said above, you have to be multiple. We cannot simply run up the middle and throw downfield. We've been trying that for months, and our offense has been mediocre in the best of cases, and completely impotent against good Ds. You have to be able to use the entire field. That means outside runs and screens. We need to commit to it, practice it, and improve it or our offense will continue to stagnate. Again, I'm not saying go all outside plays all the time, but if we can't run these plays effectively, teams will just crowd the box, play aggressive coverage, and force Kap to make quick decisions. To date, that hasn't worked so well for us.

 

[deep9er]

Your first paragraph - and frankly the entire post - is an argument to not work on your weaknesses. That doesn't cut it in the NFL. As said above, you have to be multiple. We cannot simply run up the middle and throw downfield. We've been trying that for months, and our offense has been mediocre in the best of cases, and completely impotent against good Ds. You have to be able to use the entire field. That means outside runs and screens. We need to commit to it, practice it, and improve it or our offense will continue to stagnate. Again, I'm not saying go all outside plays all the time, but if we can't run these plays effectively, teams will just crowd the box, play aggressive coverage, and force Kap to make quick decisions. To date, that hasn't worked so well for us.

you're talking about a few plays and so am I. so don't take it to the extreme as though I want zero screens. plus, don't stretch this to mean I don't want to work on weaknesses at all.

but if our personnel isn't good at something, isn't 'built' for something, we'd be foolish overworking it. we're better off working on our strengths, and forcing opponents to defend it. it is well known Coaches should use personnel to their strengths.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

you're talking about a few plays and so am I. so don't take it to the extreme as though I want zero screens. plus, don't stretch this to mean I don't want to work on weaknesses at all.

but if our personnel isn't good at something, isn't 'built' for something, we'd be foolish overworking it. we're better off working on our strengths, and forcing opponents to defend it. it is well known Coaches should use personnel to their strengths.

I guess part of our difference in thinking is that I think it's more of a coaching flaw than a personnel flaw. Particularly in the screen game, where guys are basically blocking straight ahead, just against second and third level defenders instead of DL. Our OL does that well in standard, up-the-middle running sets. We're just not setting up the screen well. I think that falls on the coaching first and foremost.