Michael Crabtree

[Crimsoncrew]

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO


O-Line comes before QB.

I disagree. Davis improved dramatically as the year progressed (getting him away from Rachal was pretty huge). We could stand to upgrade RG, maybe even C, but I think our OL is in pretty solid shape.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, everything you wrote in this post here can be reversed to make Morgan the victim just as you are portraying Crabtree to be. The truth is, on any given play every receiver can be the beneficiary or the victim of many events; however, over the course of a season those events even out. One way Crabtree can help his cause is to stop dropping passes.

The games denominator you keep referring to would never be used by a serious statistician for measuring production and your routes run idea is so highly complex that I doubt any NFL franchise uses it, but they could.

Now, having said that, all NFL franchises do have a 'percentage of plays statistic'; unfortunately, that would tell you, I and everyone out here in cyberland absolutely nothing about who was targeted on any particular play.

Here is one thought about Crabtree that you didn't bring up. I think it is safe to say that Smith is, and with good reason, trepid to pull the trigger when targeting Crabtree, thus we could make the argument that Crabtree's targets are as close to sure things as you can get? - Again, just a thought

To close out my post, I want to clarify something you previously mentioned.

I do not for a moment think Morgan is an elite WR. My extrapolation, as with all extrapolations, simply revealed what is possible. Much more analysis is necessary in order to know what is probable. It is my arguement that we should conduct that analysis on the field and my hope that we will.

Yes, everything in my example can be reversed to be applied to Morgan. Except this season we all saw Smith throw a number of bad-to-awful passes to Crabtree. He did not throw nearly as many bad balls to Morgan. Off the top of my head, I can't remember any terrible passes to Morgan, though admittedly I don't recall many specific plays from the fifth game and earlier, and especially not many incompletions that weren't outright drops.

It seemed that Smith primarily threw to Morgan when he was quite open. That makes me wonder why he didn't throw to him on other plays. If Morgan was getting open and Smith was not throwing to him, presumably the coaching staff would have realized this and designed more plays with Morgan as the primary receiver. And in those situations, if Morgan was in fact getting open, presumably Smith would have thrown to him. Smith has worked more with Morgan than any other WR on the roster, so there should not be a problem with unfamiliarity. So again, why wasn't Smith throwing more to Morgan?

Re: a routes-run analysis, it would be quite feasible for a team to do it without considering targets at all, and I would think it would be very beneficial. You want to know if your guys are getting open, and charting the routes and the result of those routes seems a logical way to do it. It's a very rare pass play that only has one read, so even if a guy isn't the primary target, you want to see what he's doing. In terms of pure statistics - as in receiving production per routes run - I believe a number of the statistical websites take that sort of approach. As with any statistics, it is limited in terms of its value. But it does have some value.

Finally, the evidence does not show that Smith is nervous about throwing to Crabtree. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The evidence suggests that Smith is reluctant to throw to Morgan unless he is clearly open, hence significantly fewer throws going in Morgan's direction when both players are on the field. I don't know why that is, given Crabtree's unreliable hands early this season. But that's what happened. I keep asking why you think that is, but have yet to get a genuine response.

 

[ViperVisor]

I disagree. Davis improved dramatically as the year progressed (getting him away from Rachal was pretty huge). We could stand to upgrade RG, maybe even C, but I think our OL is in pretty solid shape.

You are not thinking well.

Davis needs to improve more to get to average. RG was also below average. C was average. Staley improvement was to a very good level. But maybe that was just teams ignoring him and killing that weak Right side. Potty is a beast but not elite just yet.

You are high if you think the O-Line is either deserving of a B grade or Alex Smith is worthy of a C grade.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You are not thinking well.

Davis needs to improve more to get to average. RG was also below average. C was average. Staley improvement was to a very good level. But maybe that was just teams ignoring him and killing that weak Right side. Potty is a beast but not elite just yet.

You are high if you think the O-Line is either deserving of a B grade or Alex Smith is worthy of a C grade.

I think that late in the year, our struggles against the blitz were at least as much a product of Smith's struggles as the OL's. The Saints got several sacks when unaccounted-for players that Smith should have noticed got in without Smith taking advantage.

I still haven't seen the championship game on TV, so hard for me to weigh in on that one. But I felt the OL had trouble with exotic blitzes, stunts, and shifts than with the straight-forward job of blocking. And when a team struggles against the blitz, I put a fair bit of that on the QB.

 

[MHSL82]

Crimson, everything you wrote in this post here can be reversed to make Morgan the victim just as you are portraying Crabtree to be. The truth is, on any given play every receiver can be the beneficiary or the victim of many events; however, over the course of a season those events even out. One way Crabtree can help his cause is to stop dropping passes.

The games denominator you keep referring to would never be used by a serious statistician for measuring production and your routes run idea is so highly complex that I doubt any NFL franchise uses it, but they could.

Now, having said that, all NFL franchises do have a 'percentage of plays statistic'; unfortunately, that would tell you, I and everyone out here in cyberland absolutely nothing about who was targeted on any particular play.

Here is one thought about Crabtree that you didn't bring up. I think it is safe to say that Smith is, and with good reason, trepid to pull the trigger when targeting Crabtree, thus we could make the argument that Crabtree's targets are as close to sure things as you can get? - Again, just a thought

To close out my post, I want to clarify something you previously mentioned.

I do not for a moment think Morgan is an elite WR. My extrapolation, as with all extrapolations, simply revealed what is possible. Much more analysis is necessary in order to know what is probable. It is my arguement that we should conduct that analysis on the field and my hope that we will.

But if Crabtree is so untrustworthy and Smith is so hesitant that he only throws surefire catches, wouldn't the fact that Crabtree got targetted more mean he gets open more? That is a need for our team and every receiver, primary receiver or not.

 

[ViperVisor]

I think that late in the year, our struggles against the blitz were at least as much a product of Smith's struggles as the OL's. The Saints got several sacks when unaccounted-for players that Smith should have noticed got in without Smith taking advantage.

I still haven't seen the championship game on TV, so hard for me to weigh in on that one. But I felt the OL had trouble with exotic blitzes, stunts, and shifts than with the straight-forward job of blocking. And when a team struggles against the blitz, I put a fair bit of that on the QB.

This smells of reverse engineering to do away the fail being where it mostly should be. On the O-Line. Sometimes he could of guessed a guy was gonna blitz or saw it with a peak but we sacked and pressured an ASS LOAD of times and were not exactly in a June Jones offense.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This smells of reverse engineering to do away the fail being where it mostly should be. On the O-Line. Sometimes he could of guessed a guy was gonna blitz or saw it with a peak but we sacked and pressured an ASS LOAD of times and were not exactly in a June Jones offense.

I put the blame on both parties, depending upon the sack. At least two of the sacks in the Saints games were on Smith almost entirely. He has to do a better job of recognizing DB blitzes and exploiting them. There is no doubt that Smith took a lot of sacks he didn't have to this year because he was playing it safe with the football. I can live with that, but I think it's part of what is holding this offense back.

 

[ViperVisor]

It is part.

But just not more than the failure they rack up on their own.

 

[Flyingiguana]

And Smith couldn't even find/hit wide open receivers.

If you want to complain about guys, that's fine. But stop latching onto anything and everything that could excuse Smith's performance. He had ample opportunities to get us into the super bowl and he couldn't take advantage of them. As said earlier in this thread, any relatively unbiased observer who has watched this team would label our two biggest problem areas as WR and QB. There is not a close third.

smith has come through many times this season while crabtree hasn't. even vernon who had a rough year stepped up his play but having a wr we drafted so high is playing like a practice squad player is hurting our offense. i call it like i see it.

the weather was a factor in the lack of passing execution on both sides of the ball.

 

[MHSL82]

Yes!!! I was waiting, waiting, waiting for this thread to turn this into what it would inevitably be, a Smith thread. And to see it transform right before my eyes. I only hope that my posts inspired such transformation.

 

[Flyingiguana]

I put the blame on both parties, depending upon the sack. At least two of the sacks in the Saints games were on Smith almost entirely. He has to do a better job of recognizing DB blitzes and exploiting them. There is no doubt that Smith took a lot of sacks he didn't have to this year because he was playing it safe with the football. I can live with that, but I think it's part of what is holding this offense back.

and who is he suppose to throw the ball to? some plays there is basically nobody to throw to, no outlet. the ravens have the same problem, but their passing attack just doesn't really fit.

if we had some better play calling to minimize our weak pass protection and wr's who are capable of starting smith would have better numbers. he's not gonna make us forget about montana, young or heck even happy feet, but for once smith isn't one of the biggest issues on offense.

 

[MW49ers5]

...

"...admittedly I don't recall many specific plays from the fifth game and earlier..."

"It seemed that Smith primarily threw to Morgan when he was quite open."

These statements are a little contradictive, Crimson.


Re: a routes-run analysis, it would be quite feasible for a team to do it without considering targets at all, and I would think it would be very beneficial.

You're right and teams do this all week long - But they observe this information visually, not statiscally. If they want to perform a routes run analysis they would have to know who the primary, 2nd read, 3rd read, hot and decoy receivers are in order to measure the performance of each route run by each receiver.


Finally, the evidence does not show that Smith is nervous about throwing to Crabtree. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The evidence suggests that Smith is reluctant to throw to Morgan unless he is clearly open, hence significantly fewer throws going in Morgan's direction when both players are on the field. I don't know why that is, given Crabtree's unreliable hands early this season. But that's what happened. I keep asking why you think that is, but have yet to get a genuine response.

I believe you are viewing the evidence both incorrectly and a little more than a little bias as well.

First, the difference between Crabtree & Morgan after their three games was just seven targets. Seven targets is not this insurmountable figure that it feels like you are trying to make it out to be. It is just one game...

As an example, during the Detroit game with both Morgan & Edwards out, Crabtree was targeted 15 times (next closest was 5) - a difference of 10. In fact, if you remove this one game from Crabtree, his total targets per game drops from 7.9 to 6.8.

The point and my answer is simply this, targets depend on several different factors and there is no way of knowing what would have happened if Morgan had stayed healthy.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

smith has come through many times this season while crabtree hasn't. even vernon who had a rough year stepped up his play but having a wr we drafted so high is playing like a practice squad player is hurting our offense. i call it like i see it.

the weather was a factor in the lack of passing execution on both sides of the ball.

Crabtree played reasonably well over the second half of the season. He had two bad drops against NO, and vanished against the Giants - at least in part due to his QB's play. Saying he played like a practice squad player reveals your bias.

Eli showed few ill effects in the weather. His ill effects resulted from our DL doing their best to cripple him, and coming darn close to it. He threw some nice balls throughout the game, though. I don't know that Smith threw a single legitimately nice ball in the 4th quarter and OT.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

"...admittedly I don't recall many specific plays from the fifth game and earlier..."

"It seemed that Smith primarily threw to Morgan when he was quite open."

These statements are a little contradictive, Crimson.


Re: a routes-run analysis, it would be quite feasible for a team to do it without considering targets at all, and I would think it would be very beneficial.

You're right and teams do this all week long - But they observe this information visually, not statiscally. If they want to perform a routes run analysis they would have to know who the primary, 2nd read, 3rd read, hot and decoy receivers are in order to measure the performance of each route run by each receiver.


Finally, the evidence does not show that Smith is nervous about throwing to Crabtree. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The evidence suggests that Smith is reluctant to throw to Morgan unless he is clearly open, hence significantly fewer throws going in Morgan's direction when both players are on the field. I don't know why that is, given Crabtree's unreliable hands early this season. But that's what happened. I keep asking why you think that is, but have yet to get a genuine response.

I believe you are viewing the evidence both incorrectly and a little more than a little bias as well.

First, the difference between Crabtree & Morgan after their three games was just seven targets. Seven targets is not this insurmountable figure that it feels like you are trying to make it out to be. It is just one game...

As an example, during the Detroit game with both Morgan & Edwards out, Crabtree was targeted 15 times (next closest was 5) - a difference of 10. In fact, if you remove this one game from Crabtree, his total targets per game drops from 7.9 to 6.8.

The point and my answer is simply this, targets depend on several different factors and there is no way of knowing what would have happened if Morgan had stayed healthy.

I agree entirely. Though I can say with confidence that it is extremely unlikely he would have seen 126 targets in this season, and if he had, he wouldn't have come close to the numbers you extrapolated.

As far as omitting the Lions game, why would we do that? Crabtree played most of the season without Edwards or Morgan. We targeted Crabtree that much because he stepped up while Davis didn't know the offense and our other receivers weren't up to the task.

 

[Flyingiguana]

i didn't realize it was smith's fault crabtree couldn't get any seperation. where is the bias? i've never seen a starting wr play that horrible in a championship game. i thought maybe he got injured and wasn't out there. heck he couldn't even get seperation from a linebacker that the giants picked up midseason.

eli missed plenty of throws i seen him hit all season. there was a lot of high throws, seemed like the ball was getting away from him. the giants had an easy time in coverage because the only guy they needed to worry about was vernon.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

i didn't realize it was smith's fault crabtree couldn't get any seperation. where is the bias? i've never seen a starting wr play that horrible in a championship game. i thought maybe he got injured and wasn't out there. heck he couldn't even get seperation from a linebacker that the giants picked up midseason.

eli missed plenty of throws i seen him hit all season. there was a lot of high throws, seemed like the ball was getting away from him. the giants had an easy time in coverage because the only guy they needed to worry about was vernon.

Smith hit two throws all game. Period. None of his passes to WRs were close to catchable except the one that was caught. Now, maybe Crabtree was blanketed all game. I can't say. But you reach a point where, as a QB, you have to make a play. Smith didn't. At least not with his arm.

 

[MHSL82]

Smith hit two throws all game. Period. None of his passes to WRs were close to catchable except the one that was caught. Now, maybe Crabtree was blanketed all game. I can't say. But you reach a point where, as a QB, you have to make a play. Smith didn't. At least not with his arm.

This is position neutral, or I should say player neutral. Heck, it's even sports-neutral. I hate when people say this. I mean, I know it's true. You do have to make a play. But I could say this about every QB in every game they lose. But that's not my gripe. It is true, after all. My thing is when someone acts like they gave legitimate reasons (Crabtree may have been blanketed all game) but then say, but still the result should still have been XXXX.

If Crabtree was in fact blanketed every play (something I doubt) and no one else was open (something I doubt), and we should have won if not for two stupid plays outside of Smith's control, then it's good defense. No amount of "have to make a play" would make me think otherwise. It's true in a sense, but it's a cop-out, a worthless truth. Where's the play, what should he have done. It's like when someone misses free throws, saying you have to make the free throws. It's like, no duh. That bit of advice is no more worth than just saying he screwed up.

Having said that, I don't think that Crabtree was blanketed every play and that there was no one available all game. Smith should get the blame when someone was open and he didn't fire or misfired. Cosell pointed out three examples out of 40 snaps where he could have made the play. So I would amend your statement to discuss the entire game. I wouldn't imply like even when Crabtree is blanketed, he (Smith or Crabtree) must make a play. It's sounds great, because if the proposed (a made play) happened, it would be genious. But it feels like an equivocation or a circular reference.

It's a pet peeve of mine, because it's sooooooo easy. When something doesn't work, we can always say, it doesn't matter if it was snowing and you were driving slow and the other guy ran a red light, sometimes you just can't crash the car. Now, if you can show me that you didn't buy the right tires, that in fact it was you who went through the red, etc. then fine, you just can't crash the car. So to the extent that Crabtree wasn't blanketed, someone else was open (or would be in time the ball gets there), or Smith misfired, then yes, plays must be made. Every game has some of those and I wish Smith had capitilized on them. But I think this has nothing to do with whether Crabtree was blanketed or it legitimately excuses Smith from throwing to Crabtree (but not to others if they were/would be open).

Note: my definition of blanketed may be different than yours. Mine is that he was guarded to the point it would be stupid to throw to him. As far as throwing to a tight window or throwing him open when contested, if that is possible, he wasn't blanketed, IMO. If Smith doesn't trust his ability to get it to him, absent a hail mary situation (fourth down, last minute), it's better for him not to throw it. To which, then if that can't improve, a different QB is necessary.

 

[imac_21]

This is a valid question and one worth discussing, but I have to check out for a few, so I'll come back to this when I return...

This is a worthwhile question? I asked it multiple times and you refused to answer it.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This is position neutral, or I should say player neutral. Heck, it's even sports-neutral. I hate when people say this. I mean, I know it's true. You do have to make a play. But I could say this about every QB in every game they lose. But that's not my gripe. It is true, after all. My thing is when someone acts like they gave legitimate reasons (Crabtree may have been blanketed all game) but then say, but still the result should still have been XXXX.

If Crabtree was in fact blanketed every play (something I doubt) and no one else was open (something I doubt), and we should have won if not for two stupid plays outside of Smith's control, then it's good defense. No amount of "have to make a play" would make me think otherwise. It's true in a sense, but it's a cop-out, a worthless truth. Where's the play, what should he have done. It's like when someone misses free throws, saying you have to make the free throws. It's like, no duh. That bit of advice is no more worth than just saying he screwed up.

Having said that, I don't think that Crabtree was blanketed every play and that there was no one available all game. Smith should get the blame when someone was open and he didn't fire or misfired. Cosell pointed out three examples out of 40 snaps where he could have made the play. So I would amend your statement to discuss the entire game. I wouldn't imply like even when Crabtree is blanketed, he (Smith or Crabtree) must make a play. It's sounds great, because if the proposed (a made play) happened, it would be genious. But it feels like an equivocation or a circular reference.

It's a pet peeve of mine, because it's sooooooo easy. When something doesn't work, we can always say, it doesn't matter if it was snowing and you were driving slow and the other guy ran a red light, sometimes you just can't crash the car. Now, if you can show me that you didn't buy the right tires, that in fact it was you who went through the red, etc. then fine, you just can't crash the car. So to the extent that Crabtree wasn't blanketed, someone else was open (or would be in time the ball gets there), or Smith misfired, then yes, plays must be made. Every game has some of those and I wish Smith had capitilized on them. But I think this has nothing to do with whether Crabtree was blanketed or it legitimately excuses Smith from throwing to Crabtree (but not to others if they were/would be open).

Note: my definition of blanketed may be different than yours. Mine is that he was guarded to the point it would be stupid to throw to him. As far as throwing to a tight window or throwing him open when contested, if that is possible, he wasn't blanketed, IMO. If Smith doesn't trust his ability to get it to him, absent a hail mary situation (fourth down, last minute), it's better for him not to throw it. To which, then if that can't improve, a different QB is necessary.

My statement was somewhat hyperbolic. We know that there were open receivers in this game. And saying Crabtree was blanketed is false. But my overarching point is that, even if the coverage is pretty good, at some point Smith needs to throw a catchable ball. Let your receiver make a play, or at least give him a chance. Smith didn't do that.

Look, I don't mean to place full blame on Smith by any means. I seriously question the playcalling in the second half, and the 4th quarter and OT in particular. And from what I saw, Crabtree did struggle to get open. But Smith reverted to earlier form, rolling right and throwing horribly inaccurate balls. He bears as much responsibility for the loss as anyone outside of Williams IMO.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Smith hit two throws all game. Period. None of his passes to WRs were close to catchable except the one that was caught. Now, maybe Crabtree was blanketed all game. I can't say. But you reach a point where, as a QB, you have to make a play. Smith didn't. At least not with his arm.

what do u mean u can't say? maybe crabtree was blacketed all game? what do u mean maybe?