Rams game notes from Ray Dogg

[BINGO]

Looks like facts to me.

Toby, but to some people, PFF stats is the ONLY instrument we can rely on to measure outcomes. Bingo is delusional because PFF says that out of 64 passes thrown at Jenkins side of the field, 61 of them are completed and QBs have a rating of 158.5 when targeting Jenkins. On the other hand, their statistics have shown that Culliver is a top 5 corner in the league.

A lot of people do not understand the game of football in terms of coverages in schemes. It is extremely hard (not impossible but difficult) to tell who's assignment belongs to whom when looking at the secondary and linebackers interact. Communication is key between the two unit for them to be in synch in pass coverage. For instance, during this last game, Jenkins was in certain coverage which demanded of him to give up the slant route (Manningham/Moss) knowing that the slant would lead to receiver running directly to the LBs zone. His main responsibility based on downs and distance based on what I know about playing corner... was for him to cover the deep 3rds despite being on a press/bump-and-run look. Which means that the WLB is suppose to cover the flats / slants. Yet, people automatically assumed that giving up the slants as opposed to the deep third was not "intentional" by designd based on what Fisher wanted to accomplish with their blitz packages. Yet, PFF was in the huddle and have first hand knowledge that Fisher wanted Jenkins to chase the receiver all the way into the middle of the field and therefore they are 100% accurate whey they say for instance this particular pass was Jenkins fault as opposed to Laurinaitis or Dunbar's fault.

 

[BINGO]

Funny that you would point those TWO plays out. Nice job. Did you see how awful those passes were? 3 of the other 5 other balls that came into his direction that day were off target. Fortunate for the Rams that they were because he was out of position on 2 of those.

What about Jeff Fisher calling him out for gambling too much and not being a disciplined player?

What about giving up the 6th most receptions in the NFL this season for the 8th most yards?

What about giving up the 2nd most TDs so far this season (1 behind 4 other players)?

What about having one of the 10 worst QB ratings when QBs target him?

What about having BY FAR the most missed tackles by a starting DB this season?

What about 6 out of the previous 9 games before that one where he graded out terribly in coverage, according to 3 different grading sites? Are they all wrong?

I will admit, however, like I did the other day, that in the 49ers game the coaches seemed to put him in some bad spots where it was easy for the 49ers to take advantage of the room underneath against him. I will give you that one.

This whole thing is getting utterly ridiculous, Bingo.

So you ask me for facts, I provided facts, then you make excuses for his accomplishments. So why even bother to waste my time to ask me for facts? Its seems that everything anything in favor of Jenkins is a reason why he got lucky. Which is why I initially ignored your request for several weeks now. I've gotten to know you Clyde, and Imac very well over the years. I know your tendencies. Your facts are accurate, and the people who makes important decisions in the NFL to issue out accolades and awards are clueless. Only your PFF stats matters. You got it Pozz, Culliver is top 5!

 

[BINGO]

Funny that you would point those TWO plays out. Nice job. Did you see how awful those passes were? 3 of the other 5 other balls that came into his direction that day were off target. Fortunate for the Rams that they were because he was out of position on 2 of those.

What about Jeff Fisher calling him out for gambling too much and not being a disciplined player?

What about giving up the 6th most receptions in the NFL this season for the 8th most yards?

What about giving up the 2nd most TDs so far this season (1 behind 4 other players)?

What about having one of the 10 worst QB ratings when QBs target him?

What about having BY FAR the most missed tackles by a starting DB this season?

What about 6 out of the previous 9 games before that one where he graded out terribly in coverage, according to 3 different grading sites? Are they all wrong?

I will admit, however, like I did the other day, that in the 49ers game the coaches seemed to put him in some bad spots where it was easy for the 49ers to take advantage of the room underneath against him. I will give you that one.

This whole thing is getting utterly ridiculous, Bingo.

I just finished discussing that on a previous post to Toby. I'm shocked that you are able to pick up on that. However, several people (regulars) failed to make that connection and made references such as "he's getting roasted" (something to that extent). As if playing corner and what is being asked of him wasn't by design in order to eliminate our big explosive plays (Kaepernick in previous games wanted to go deep on teams. They wanted to eliminate that so giving up the slants was Fisher's way). It's just sad that some people are ignorant about coverages and the little things that goes on in the game that impacts the outcome of a game as a whole.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Toby, but to some people, PFF stats is the ONLY instrument we can rely on to measure outcomes. Bingo is delusional because PFF says that out of 64 passes thrown at Jenkins side of the field, 61 of them are completed and QBs have a rating of 158.5 when targeting Jenkins. On the other hand, their statistics have shown that Culliver is a top 5 corner in the league.

A lot of people do not understand the game of football in terms of coverages in schemes. It is extremely hard (not impossible but difficult) to tell who's assignment belongs to whom when looking at the secondary and linebackers interact. Communication is key between the two unit for them to be in synch in pass coverage. For instance, during this last game, Jenkins was in certain coverage which demanded of him to give up the slant route (Manningham/Moss) knowing that the slant would lead to receiver running directly to the LBs zone. His main responsibility based on downs and distance based on what I know about playing corner... was for him to cover the deep 3rds despite being on a press/bump-and-run look. Which means that the WLB is suppose to cover the flats / slants. Yet, people automatically assumed that giving up the slants as opposed to the deep third was not "intentional" by designd based on what Fisher wanted to accomplish with their blitz packages. Yet, PFF was in the huddle and have first hand knowledge that Fisher wanted Jenkins to chase the receiver all the way into the middle of the field and therefore they are 100% accurate whey they say for instance this particular pass was Jenkins fault as opposed to Laurinaitis or Dunbar's fault.

I have provided over 10 different links in the last month for you with information from 3 different scouting services, totaling 20 different opinions, for you to look at but you continue to stick to the same argument. I've acknowledged the flaws in PFF's work, but have continued to provide information from other sources that are credible.

I have asked you to go back and refute in detail what over 20 different people have said, and except for 3 brief instances, you have chosen not to do so.

I have asked you how much of Jenkins you've actually seen yourself? You failed to answer. At this point, I'm starting to believe it has not been very much. Why else ignore that question?

I have asked you to provide me with proof of me or anybody else saying that Culliver is a top corner or that he compares to Revis. I asked you to provide proof of Clyde or Imac saying that he is the Aaron Rodgers of CBs. You have chosen not to provide me with that either. That one just sounds like another Bingo special. I seriously doubt either one said anything of the sort.

I am officially done with this argument as it is no longer worth my time or energy, and, at this point, it is just taking over threads that are intended for other things. No offense and no hard feelings, Bingo, but I'm done with the Jenkins talk for now.

 

[BINGO]

I have provided over 10 different links in the last month for you with information from 3 different scouting services, totaling 20 different opinions, for you to look at but you continue to stick to the same argument. I've acknowledged the flaws in PFF's work, but have continued to provide information from other sources that are credible.

I have asked you to go back and refute in detail what over 20 different people have said, and except for 3 brief instances, you have chosen not to do so.

I have asked you how much of Jenkins you've actually seen yourself? You failed to answer. At this point, I'm starting to believe it has not been very much. Why else ignore that question?

I have asked you to provide me with proof of me or anybody else saying that Culliver is a top corner or that he compares to Revis. I asked you to provide proof of Clyde or Imac saying that he is the Aaron Rodgers of CBs. You have chosen not to provide me with that either. That one just sounds like another Bingo special. I seriously doubt either one said anything of the sort.

I am officially done with this argument as it is no longer worth my time or energy, and, at this point, it is just taking over threads that are intended for other things. No offense and no hard feelings, Bingo, but I'm done with the Jenkins talk for now.

I was done a long time ago when you claimed Culliver was a top 5 corner; and totally dismissed Jenkins accomplishments by referring to it as luck (poor qb play). Yet, Aldon getting five sacks in one game is not luck (he was facing some elite OTs and a QB - thus it was well earned). Jenkins...no, his was luck.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Roman on ill-fated option-pitch: ‘The result was not the intent of the play call’ | 49ers Hot Read

 

[deep9er]

Roman on ill-fated option-pitch: ‘The result was not the intent of the play call’ | 49ers Hot Read

yep, execution.

no matter the call - run or pass - it comes down to execution. we fans have been asking for plays that aren't so conservative, well there you go. but since the execution failed, fans are all over it after the fact.

similar to a running play, if the execution isn't there and the run is for no gain, is the play bad because it was a run? if Roman called a run up the middle instead, and it got stuffed, what would the fans have said then?

 

[Bemular]

yep, execution.

no matter the call - run or pass - it comes down to execution. we fans have been asking for plays that aren't so conservative, well there you go. but since the execution failed, fans are all over it after the fact.

similar to a running play, if the execution isn't there and the run is for no gain, is the play bad because it was a run? if Roman called a run up the middle instead, and it got stuffed, what would the fans have said then?

We fans? Once again speak for yourself Deep.

The pitch play was a horrible call and many of us declared it as such long before Harbaugh admitted it. Even if the play had worked it still would have been a horrible play call for that situation.

Just because a play works doesn't mean it was a good play and vice-versa; which means, you need to know something about football strategy to make an informed opinion.

 

[deep9er]

We fans? Once again speak for yourself Deep.

The pitch play was a horrible call and many of us declared it as such long before Harbaugh admitted it. Even if the play had worked it still would have been a horrible play call for that situation.

Just because a play works doesn't mean it was a good play and vice-versa; which means, you need to know something about football strategy to make an informed opinion.

if it was executed as designed, it would've been a big play, a creative play.

as i already said Monday, it can be argued all day, but now we know the outcome. what i'm commenting on is really before the outcome, what kind of plays do you make...conservative or creative?

 

[Bemular]

if it was executed as designed, it would've been a big play, a creative play.

as i already said Monday, it can be argued all day, but now we know the outcome. what i'm commenting on is really before the outcome, what kind of plays do you make...conservative or creative?

If it was executed as designed it would have been a loss unless Ginn was able to get beyond Jenkins who was not at all fooled on the play. Did you not see the play?

Regardless, as I said, even if the play had gone for six it would still have been a bad play call by Roman.

 

[yossarian]

Roman on ill-fated option-pitch: ‘The result was not the intent of the play call’ | 49ers Hot Read

It was a bad call by Roman, a bad move by Harbaugh not to veto it, bad execution by Kaep, bad execution by Ginn. Any nitpicking over who is more at fault is message board masturbation.

 

[MHSL82]

yep, execution.

no matter the call - run or pass - it comes down to execution. we fans have been asking for plays that aren't so conservative, well there you go. but since the execution failed, fans are all over it after the fact.

similar to a running play, if the execution isn't there and the run is for no gain, is the play bad because it was a run? if Roman called a run up the middle instead, and it got stuffed, what would the fans have said then?

Do we fans want creativity in that situation - inside our own 20 up by within one score in the last four minutes in a game where the other team is not scoring well? If this were to happen on say, the 45 yardline in the third quarter, or up by 14 (creativity trying to seal the game), or when we think that giving the ball to the other team will allow them to score because they're "on." If this were in the NO game, without the pick sixes (just 3 TDs by Brees), maybe we could say, "hey, we wanted creativity." I wouldn't, because I don't care about creativity just results - when we stalled on offense, I don't think creativity is the culprit all that often. Sometimes, it's the playcall but an alternate uncreative play would have done - just in-game adjustments or situational football. Sometimes it's the execution, not the creativity, that we get upset over. Unlike some, when things worked, I didn't complain about our lack of creativity.

I focus more on the timing than the play itself, but I lean towards what Bem said, that even if it were executed, that's a bad play. Crude analogy but - even if you get home safely and without a ticket, you shouldn't drive home drunk. Why? Because you couldn't have made the decision to drive knowing you'd get home safely so you can't defend the decision. (Obviously how drunk you are and how far or where you are driving matters, too.) When Roman made the call, he couldn't have known it would be successful and it carried too much risk. You never really know 100% something would be successful at any point of the game, but this can't be defended well by saying you were playing the odds, situation, or whatnot.

 

[MHSL82]

It was a bad call by Roman, a bad move by Harbaugh not to veto it, bad execution by Kaep, bad execution by Ginn. Any nitpicking over who is more at fault is message board masturbation.

Just a question for everybody, a little off topic but related. Apologies in advance and full disclaimer, Cohn was the one who suggested this idea and I just wanted to get your opinion on it.

What do you guys think of Harbaugh seeminly making us all know that Roman called the play? I would have assumed that anyway, but the way he first mentioned it didn't sound like "we shouldn't (as a coaching staff) have called it" but rather "I shouldn't have let Roman call that play." He has deflected specifics often and this time he was clear. If you would have asked me how he would respond, I would have assumed it had fewer specifics and a bit of a "I know where you're going, we're together as a coaching staff" type of way (not those words, obviously). Again, had he said nothing, I would have assumed Roman called it, because he's the OC but Harbaugh is unique in that he's involved in the playcalling, where some coaches are not. They may hear the call, but they leave it to their OC. We definitely benefit from it. But we all walked away looking at Roman, when Harbaugh clearly said he took responsibility. Just a thought. I think he's fine, but that's because my responses to personal or professional questions are typically unfiltered.

 

[Bemular]

It was a bad call by Roman, a bad move by Harbaugh not to veto it, bad execution by Kaep, bad execution by Ginn. Any nitpicking over who is more at fault is message board masturbation.

LMAO!!! Post of the day right here!

 

[Bemular]

Just a question for everybody, a little off topic but related. Apologies in advance and full disclaimer, Cohn was the one who suggested this idea and I just wanted to get your opinion on it.

What do you guys think of Harbaugh seeminly making us all know that Roman called the play? I would have assumed that anyway, but the way he first mentioned it didn't sound like "we shouldn't (as a coaching staff) have called it" but rather I shouldn't have let Roman call that play. Harbaugh is unique in that he's involved in the playcalling, where some coaches are not. They may hear the call, but they leave it to their OC. We definitely benefit from it. But we all walked away looking at Roman, when Harbaugh clearly said he took responsibility. He has deflected specifics often and this time he was clear. Just a thought. I think he's fine, but that's because my responses to personal or professional questions are typically unfiltered.

I took it as no revelation at all - It seems Cohn is unaware of how the 49ers are structured and the NFL rules which states that all plays must come from the sideline.

Thus I assumed everyone knew the play came from the booth through Harbaugh. (Even if Roman was a sideline guy the plays would still go through Harbaugh's headset - just as the defensive plays do).

It almost seems as if Harbaugh was simply explaining the process to someone in the press who didn't understand it - now we know who that someone was.

 

[MHSL82]

I took it as no revelation at all - It seems Cohn is unaware of how the 49ers are structured and the NFL rules which states that all plays must come from the sideline.

Thus I assumed everyone knew the play came from the booth through Harbaugh. (Even if Roman was a sideline guy the plays would still go through Harbaugh's headset - just as the defensive plays do).

It almost seems as if Harbaugh was simply explaining the process to someone in the press who didn't understand it - now we know who that someone was.

Not that I'm ever really "on" but I am OFF today. I knew that rule and how it works and yet, I didn't think of its relevance or point it out. And I should never relay a Cohn idea. Ever. Every question can be answered in many, many ways and people can interpret them in many different ways, too. No reason for Harbaugh to swerve this one - it wasn't that big of a deal, if at all. Cohn just doesn't like Harbaugh for making his life harder, seeing Cohn for who he is, and not giving him stuff to write on. Generally speaking, people with egos, earned or not, don't mesh well with others with egos.

 

[Bemular]

Not that I'm ever really "on" but I am OFF today. I knew that rule and how it works and yet, I didn't think of its relevance or point it out. And I should never relay a Cohn idea. Ever. Every question can be answered in many, many ways and people can interpret them in many different ways, too. No reason for Harbaugh to swerve this one - it wasn't that big of a deal, if at all. Cohn just doesn't like Harbaugh for making his life harder, seeing Cohn for who he is, and not giving him stuff to write on. Generally speaking, people with egos, earned or not, don't mesh well with others with egos.

Yeah, Cohn (IMO) just isn't very sharp. My guess is the question was about who called the play and Harbaugh said Roman called it but then quickly deflected responsibility onto himself, thus answering the question while establishing accountability for the mistake.

 

[MHSL82]

Yeah, Cohn (IMO) just isn't very sharp. My guess is the question was about who called the play and Harbaugh said Roman called it but then quickly deflected responsibility onto himself, thus answering the question while establishing accountability for the mistake.

I thought the question was about Kaepernick's mistake and coach defended Kaep by saying it was the playcall that he shouldn't have allowed. From that, people asked him specifics. But that doesn't really change anything. Cohn's isn't my favorite.

 

[Bemular]

I thought the question was about Kaepernick's mistake and coach defended Kaep by saying it was the playcall that he shouldn't have allowed. From that, people asked him specifics. But that doesn't really change anything. Cohn's isn't my favorite.

The only time I read Cohn is when he posts transcripts - his opinions I could not care less about.

 

[MHSL82]

The only time I read Cohn is when he posts transcripts - his opinions I could not care less about.

When people properly use the "could not care less," it's like music to my ears compared to the opposite, which is just too illogical for even me (and the fact people repeat what they hear, even if it's incorrect). Plus, some have tried to justify the reverse by incorrectly interchanging the word irony for sarcasm.