Speed

[Pattersonca65]

a better OL will help the run AND pass. If the run game is more effective, Seattle has to play the run. this helps the passing game overall. This is what they do to our D, make us play Lynch.

Kaep's strength isn't short passing, he needs more time to make his decisions first of all, then to make his throws. So again, a better OL will give him this extra time. a speedy WR will help, ASSUMING Kaep has time to scan downfield, then decide who's open? Seattle could double team this speedy WR all game?

my opinion isn't that we don't need speed, but against Seattle we're losing in the trenches. Their lines are playing better than ours. We don't need a trench overhaul by any means, but against Seattle I'd rather add a solid O-linemen before a speedy WR.

Our DLine has played well against their OLine. Our Oline hasn't. Part of that problem is they are stacking the box as other teams have done because we can't stretch the field and don't have deep threats

 

[deep9er]

Our DLine has played well against their OLine. Our Oline hasn't. Part of that problem is they are stacking the box as other teams have done because we can't stretch the field and don't have deep threats

the bigger problem (not only one) is that Kaep takes too long to see the field. so even if you add a speedy WR - who again could be doubled teamed - Kaep needs more time to see him. the Oline needs to provide more time to allow this speedy WR to get down field. Seattle's rush is too good for many downfield routes anyway.

adding a solid linemen will increase pass protect, so this allows Kaep to see OTHER receivers too.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

we lost to them twice last season, and four of five going back two years. Apparently, we didn't have an advantage on Seattle.

it could be we just need a new offensive scheme and better OL Coach? But our OL can't block Seattle consistently enough - run and pass.

Our DL isn't that bad against Seattle and again, maybe a scheme (4-3) change will help against Beast and friends?

Yes we could use speed no doubt, but in regard to a speedy WR, it'll be for naught if Kaep can't get better seeing the field. Whereas a better OL also makes the run game go.

Deep, that's a terrible argument. "We lost to Seattle, so they must be better in the trenches." Are you prepared to say we weren't better than Seattle at any position, as evidenced by their victories over us? Or are you arguing that the team that wins in the trenches ALWAYS win the game?

Our OL and DL have been the strength of the team recently. In the 2013 NFCCG, our DL dominated their OL totally and utterly. They were relatively better than Seattle's DL was against us (our yardage was identical, but they had more explosive plays; and we lost a pro bowl OG and pro bowl ILB during the game). But Seattle has the benefit of a QB who is very tough to bring down in the pocket, and a RB who can break multiple tackles on a regular basis. That's not the trenches. Lynch averaged 3.3 YPC in that game but for a 40-yard run when several back-seven players - and Eric Reid specifically - simply missed the tackle. Even if we credit him with a ten-yard gain since he made it to the second level, that's still a 3.6 YPC average. Take away Wilson's 51-yard bomb to Baldwin - a credit to his elusiveness and both our safeties blowing coverage - and he put up 164 passing yards, took four sacks, and fumbled twice. His only TD came on a free play when our DL didn't really rush him.

Seattle has dominated our offense in part because they are very good at all three levels of D, but the domination has been so total largely because they can crowd the line. They can bring their safeties down to play the run. Their CBs can maul our WRs and TEs at the line. Earl Thomas can run down any of our WRs with ease.

Do you have anything other than platitudes to support your claim that they are winning because they are winning in the trenches?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

the bigger problem (not only one) is that Kaep takes too long to see the field. so even if you add a speedy WR - who again could be doubled teamed - Kaep needs more time to see him. the Oline needs to provide more time to allow this speedy WR to get down field. Seattle's rush is too good for many downfield routes anyway.

adding a solid linemen will increase pass protect, so this allows Kaep to see OTHER receivers too.

You say the bolded above as if it's a knock on adding a WR. If they're double-teaming a WR, they're not putting that safety in the box or on another receiver. That's precisely why we want a speedy WR.

The thing about speed receivers is that you don't need to use them on every play. Just the threat of them on the field is often enough to push defenders back on a play-by-play basis, or make them think twice before committing to the run. If you hit one or two deep balls a game, defenses will start committing defenders to that player regularly.

Obviously we want to be strong at every position. The question is where we are best-suited to increase strength this year, and going forward. There is only (possibly) one OL spot that we're going to upgrade this year. We have pro bowl caliber players at LT, RG, and RT. Those guys are set in stone. We are set at C with some combination of Kilgore and Martin, the latter of whom is very young, but was widely considered the best center in the draft. So LG is the only real question, assuming we lose Iupati. The loser of Kilgore/Martin could fill that spot; both played OG in college. We also added an OL in the third round last year who was getting late-first, early-second buzz before he was injured in Thomas.

Conversely, we have no outside speed at receiver. Boldin is great, but not a dynamic player and on the decline. Johnson may not stick around, and is still a question mark so far as returning to #1 receiver form. Ellington has good quickness and could be effective in the slot, but he's raw and very undersized to trust him outside. Patton is also raw and not a true burner.

So if, for instance, we were presented with a question of adding a fast, complete receiver at 15 versus an all-around LG - and let's just say they were rated precisely the same on our board - I can't think that anyone associated with this team in any way would go with the LG. If you want to add in a DT/DE for consideration, that's a very different story, but I take the WR over the OG without thinking twice if the goal is to beat Seattle next year.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

From ESPN/PFF's look at what teams need to become super bowl contenders next year:

Despite the additions of Stevie Johnson and Brandon Lloyd, San Francisco caught just five passes that traveled 30 yards or more in the air.

That's a problem. Not just against the Hawks, but against any team.

 

[deep9er]

Deep, that's a terrible argument. "We lost to Seattle, so they must be better in the trenches." Are you prepared to say we weren't better than Seattle at any position, as evidenced by their victories over us? Or are you arguing that the team that wins in the trenches ALWAYS win the game?

Our OL and DL have been the strength of the team recently. In the 2013 NFCCG, our DL dominated their OL totally and utterly. They were relatively better than Seattle's DL was against us (our yardage was identical, but they had more explosive plays; and we lost a pro bowl OG and pro bowl ILB during the game). But Seattle has the benefit of a QB who is very tough to bring down in the pocket, and a RB who can break multiple tackles on a regular basis. That's not the trenches. Lynch averaged 3.3 YPC in that game but for a 40-yard run when several back-seven players - and Eric Reid specifically - simply missed the tackle. Even if we credit him with a ten-yard gain since he made it to the second level, that's still a 3.6 YPC average. Take away Wilson's 51-yard bomb to Baldwin - a credit to his elusiveness and both our safeties blowing coverage - and he put up 164 passing yards, took four sacks, and fumbled twice. His only TD came on a free play when our DL didn't really rush him.

Seattle has dominated our offense in part because they are very good at all three levels of D, but the domination has been so total largely because they can crowd the line. They can bring their safeties down to play the run. Their CBs can maul our WRs and TEs at the line. Earl Thomas can run down any of our WRs with ease.

Do you have anything other than platitudes to support your claim that they are winning because they are winning in the trenches?

So Seattle beat us four out five times but it had nothing to do with linemen, all 8 or 9 of them? See I can play that game too.

MY opinion is we lose to Seattle because we're losing the line of scrimmage FIRST, both sides. Right now their lines are playing better and it shows in their wins. If this is wrong then why do we lose to them if not the trenches?

because we don't have Calvin Johnson? because we don't have Dez Bryant? If we had one of these speed receivers, we'd have beaten Seattle??!! Add any current NFL WR you want to our 2014 team, would we have beaten Seattle?

Does three levels of D include the D-line, or doesn't it?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

So Seattle beat us four out five times but it had nothing to do with linemen, all 8 or 9 of them? See I can play that game too.

MY opinion is we lose to Seattle because we're losing the line of scrimmage FIRST, both sides. Right now their lines are playing better and it shows in their wins. If this is wrong then why do we lose to them if not the trenches?

because we don't have Calvin Johnson? because we don't have Dez Bryant? If we had one of these speed receivers, we'd have beaten Seattle??!! Add any current NFL WR you want to our 2014 team, would we have beaten Seattle?

Does three levels of D include the D-line, or doesn't it?

Do you seriously not see the problem with that argument?

You could make the bolded claim about any position. "They're beating us so their QB must be better." Or their RB. Or their DBs. Outside of them winning, why do you believe it's because they are winning the trenches? Is our DL being outplayed by their OL? If you believe so, why do you think that?

Or, again, are you arguing that the team that wins in the trenches wins every game?

And you're not "playing that game too." I'm not saying our losses to them have nothing to do with the trenches. On the contrary, I acknowledged that their DL has outplayed our OL. But our DL outplayed theirs in at least three of the last five games (most recent, NFCCG, and 2013 in SF) and we still lost two of those three.

As far as adding a WR, that's a silly argument. What OL would you add to our roster that would have guaranteed us victory? I'd rather go into Seattle with Daniel Kilgore or Marcus Martin at center and Calvin Johnson at WR than Maurkice Pouncey at center and Johnson or Patton at WR. I think most people would agree with me on that. Hell, the left side of our OL has been among the best in the league for the losses you're citing.

 

[GoreRush]

Hopefully we aren't planning on giving Michael Crabtree a huge money deal. They need to find a speedy WR, no more possession guys. Just one dynamic player can change things real fast for us!

 

[Pattersonca65]

Hopefully we aren't planning on giving Michael Crabtree a huge money deal. They need to find a speedy WR, no more possession guys. Just one dynamic player can change things real fast for us!

At least from everything I've read is the 49ers are not going to give Crabtree a big money deal and are going to let him test the market. It is supposedly a buyers market this year for free agent wide receivers. If Crabtree doesn't get a deal in the free agent market he is looking for, than it is possible he could end up back in SF.