Michael Crabtree

[MW49ers5]

fact is, next year we need less targets to crabtree/morgan and more targets to say colston/lloyd. extrapolate that!

Whoot!!!!...Love it!!! Well Played, Iguana!!

 

[MHSL82]

fact is, next year we need less targets to crabtree/morgan and more targets to say colston/lloyd. extrapolate that!

Hmm... Colston's last name is 40% longer than Lloyd's but has only half the number of l's (and no d's!), so while Colston clearly gets the #1 targets, Lloyd really is more effective and should be targetted more. The distance between the o's in Colston's name is concerning, but that isn't anything that can't be addressed in a full offseason. As for the pairing, Colston/Lloyd duo has fewer combined letters than Crabtree/Morgan, but again, the number of l's is simply impressive! (Ignore the r's, they don't mean anything)

Hope this is following as much logic as some of the things on this thread. If not, I have hidden the decoder somewhere in the last 17 pages (including this one).

 

[deep9er]

the play calling against the giants was horrible. he got away from what was working and it put us in 3rd and long. too predictable. the knapp formula was, pass on 1st, run on 2nd, then 3rd and 8 watch qb get blitzed.

every qb needs open recievers. or at least a step so the defensive back doesn't knock the ball away. if smith made a throw to someone that was covered and it ended up being intercepted it would be, smith is back to being a turnover machine.

the nitpicking is horrible and it's a result of the wasted years

here we go again, horrible play calling or poor execution? recall we have a poor offense, odds are they don't execute every play.

also again, good OC's have to lean to what their personnel do best, but recall we don't do many things 'best'. Roman is a little limited but he still called good stuff, how else do we win that many games with such a poor Unit?

if you want to pick just the Giants game (2nd half?), keep in mind the Giants D was playing well. so was those long passes pointed out Cossell poor calls, or poor execution?

 

[MHSL82]

It wasn't an insult...that is a real book and it would be very helpful for Imac to read it...

I'm sure you've read it, could you let me borrow it? I'll give you my book on counting, yours, for keeps. I just need a few days to read the Football for Dummies book. Oh, while, I'm here, I actually do want the Football for Dummies book, as the Football for Idiots is entirely inaccurate. I assume you have both? You see, it's a complicated play on words. Football for Idiots was written by idiots for idiots. The jumbled garbage doesn't make sense to anyone but idiots. Football for Dummies was written by former full-scale anthropomorphic test devices to explain the game of football to those who might not know all the nuances of football.

 

[imac_21]

Imac, honestly, if you understood football strategy, you would understand my answer. Thus, it isn't that I won't answer the question, I have answered it, the problem is simply that you are incapable of understanding the answer.

That's absolute fucking bullshit. You make your silly little extrapolation based on way too small a sample size and conclude that Morgan is much better than Crabtree. When confronted with the exact same extrapolation applied to the Panthers that shows Brandon Lafell being the statistical equivalent of Steve Smith you ignore it.

Then you start shoveling this shit about it "only being 7 more targets" in 3 games and that if you take away Crabtree's 10 in Detroit it significantly lowers his total (duh).

The question is simple. If Morgan is a significantly better receiver than Crabtree (as your extrapolation data clearly indicates) why does Smith not throw to Morgan as often as he throws to Crabtree?

Also consider that

1. Smith, per one of your earlier posts is tepid and hesitant to throw to Crabtree.

2. Many posters have stated Crabtree won't get open.

3. Most everyone on the board acknowledges that Smith had such a low INT total because he didn't take chances forcing the ball to WR or TE this year.

Given this information, why doesn't he throw to Morgan as often as he throws to Crabtree?

 

[MW49ers5]

I'm sure you've read it, could you let me borrow it? I'll give you my book on counting, yours, for keeps. I just need a few days to read the Football for Dummies book. Oh, while, I'm here, I actually do want the Football for Dummies book, as the Football for Idiots is entirely inaccurate. I assume you have both? You see, it's a complicated play on words. Football for Idiots was written by idiots for idiots. The jumbled garbage doesn't make sense to anyone but idiots.

Honestly '82, you should start with books a little bit easier than football for dummies or football for idiots - I think you would find both of those books quite advanced for your knowledge level...Good Luck...

 

[MHSL82]

That's absolute fucking bullshit. You make your silly little extrapolation based on way too small a sample size and conclude that Morgan is much better than Crabtree. When confronted with the exact same extrapolation applied to the Panthers that shows Brandon Lafell being the statistical equivalent of Steve Smith you ignore it.

Then you start shoveling this shit about it "only being 7 more targets" in 3 games and that if you take away Crabtree's 10 in Detroit it significantly lowers his total (duh).

The question is simple. If Morgan is a significantly better receiver than Crabtree (as your extrapolation data clearly indicates) why does Smith not throw to Morgan as often as he throws to Crabtree?

Also consider that

1. Smith, per one of your earlier posts is tepid and hesitant to throw to Crabtree.

2. Many posters have stated Crabtree won't get open.

3. Most everyone on the board acknowledges that Smith had such a low INT total because he didn't take chances forcing the ball to WR or TE this year.

Given this information, why doesn't he throw to Morgan as often as he throws to Crabtree?

But none of this logic has anything to do with football. It's about deductive reasoning, logical assumptions, connecting the dots, and argumentative consistency. If you just read his book, you'd see that on page 117 it says that the relative ability of a player can be mathematically determined by extrapolating a few (doesn't matter how many) arbitrary numbers gathered in whatever mode or system and applied to any other period of time so long as it supports your hypothesis. Now it's important to factor in how much wiggle room you'll need later, as that is much easier than ignoring the challenges, though that is a bit counter-intuitive. I don't know why I'm explaining it, it won't make any sense without reading the book.

 

[MHSL82]

Honestly '82, you should start with books a little bit easier than football for dummies or football for idiots - I think you would find both of those books quite advanced for your knowledge level...Good Luck...

Oh, don't worry about me. I've got it covered. My dog reads me every other word and my baby scribbles the rest with her rice cereal. Between the two, it's crystal clear. Though it did start talking about this "onside kick" thing that got me quite confused. I mean, you can kick the ball when you're offsides? Cause why else would you distinguish onside kicks from anything else?

 

[MW49ers5]

Oh, don't worry about me. I've got it covered. My dog reads me every other word and my baby scribbles the rest with her rice cereal. Between the two, it's crystal clear. Though it did start talking about this "onside kick" thing that got me quite confused. I mean, you can kick the ball when you're offsides? Cause why else would you distinguish onside kicks from anything else?

I believe it's planetary...but I could be wrong...check the rice cereal for signs.

 

[MW49ers5]

That's absolute fucking bullshit. You make your silly little extrapolation based on way too small a sample size and conclude that Morgan is much better than Crabtree. When confronted with the exact same extrapolation applied to the Panthers that shows Brandon Lafell being the statistical equivalent of Steve Smith you ignore it.

Then you start shoveling this shit about it "only being 7 more targets" in 3 games and that if you take away Crabtree's 10 in Detroit it significantly lowers his total (duh).

The question is simple. If Morgan is a significantly better receiver than Crabtree (as your extrapolation data clearly indicates) why does Smith not throw to Morgan as often as he throws to Crabtree?

Also consider that

1. Smith, per one of your earlier posts is tepid and hesitant to throw to Crabtree.

2. Many posters have stated Crabtree won't get open.

3. Most everyone on the board acknowledges that Smith had such a low INT total because he didn't take chances forcing the ball to WR or TE this year.

Given this information, why doesn't he throw to Morgan as often as he throws to Crabtree?

Dude, you have lost it - this entire post is fucking bullshit...

 

[imac_21]

Dude, you have lost it - this entire post is fucking bullshit...

When you call a post bullshit, I know it's a very well written, completely coherent point.

But is it bullshit that you have said Morgan is better than Crabtree?

Is it bullshit that you said Smith is tepid about throwing to Crabtree?

Is it bullshit that most posters believe Smith's low INT totals are from being incredibly careful with the ball?

 

[MW49ers5]

When you call a post bullshit, I know it's a very well written, completely coherent point.

But is it bullshit that you have said Morgan is better than Crabtree?

Works for me...

 

[MW49ers5]

When you call a post bullshit, I know it's a very well written, completely coherent point.

But is it bullshit that you have said Morgan is better than Crabtree?

Is it bullshit that you said Smith is tepid about throwing to Crabtree?

Is it bullshit that most posters believe Smith's low INT totals are from being incredibly careful with the ball?

Yep, those work for me too...

 

[Flyingiguana]

here we go again, horrible play calling or poor execution? recall we have a poor offense, odds are they don't execute every play.

also again, good OC's have to lean to what their personnel do best, but recall we don't do many things 'best'. Roman is a little limited but he still called good stuff, how else do we win that many games with such a poor Unit?

if you want to pick just the Giants game (2nd half?), keep in mind the Giants D was playing well. so was those long passes pointed out Cossell poor calls, or poor execution?

those long passes are gonna be tough to complete under the wet conditions. they only had so many balls for each team and the longer the game went the tougher to have some dry balls ready.

the only time we really seemed to attack a defense was when we really needed to score. obviously the offense line was a problem and it showed in the red zone,but there were too many wacky plays in the red zone. it seemed like they just wanted to set up akers instead of scoring.

 

[deep9er]

those long passes are gonna be tough to complete under the wet conditions. they only had so many balls for each team and the longer the game went the tougher to have some dry balls ready.

the only time we really seemed to attack a defense was when we really needed to score. obviously the offense line was a problem and it showed in the red zone,but there were too many wacky plays in the red zone. it seemed like they just wanted to set up akers instead of scoring.

i didn't get that impressiion at all, but since i don't want to search for detailed plays......we'll leave it at that.

most of it will be perception anyway, if the plays are executed its good play calling or poor D. but if the plays are poorly executed or well defended, its poor play calling.

 

[imac_21]

Originally Posted by imac_21 View Post
When you call a post bullshit, I know it's a very well written, completely coherent point.

But is it bullshit that you have said Morgan is better than Crabtree?

Is it bullshit that you said Smith is tepid about throwing to Crabtree?

Is it bullshit that most posters believe Smith's low INT totals are from being incredibly careful with the ball?

Yep, those work for me too...

So you haven't said Morgan is better than Crabtree; you haven't said Smith was hesitant to throw to Crabtree; and most posters do not feel that Smith's INT numbers were down because he was being careful.

So then, you believe Crabtree is, at worst, as good as Morgan; Smith is comfortable throwing to Crabtree and Smith's low INT totals come from. . . what? His amazing accuracy when fitting balls into tight windows?

 

[Flyingiguana]

i didn't get that impressiion at all, but since i don't want to search for detailed plays......we'll leave it at that.

most of it will be perception anyway, if the plays are executed its good play calling or poor D. but if the plays are poorly executed or well defended, its poor play calling.

when you're in the red zone and running the ball, there's really not much upside. there was plenty of overly conservative play calls when we had the lead. they were happy with 3 points unless we actually needed a touchdown.

it's like the coaching staff expected the offense to flick a switch whenever it was needed in the 4th. that's tough to do, but we ended up pulling it off more often than not.