WRs?

[Elmgrovegnome]

I had a feeling there would be some who didn't think it was his best game. But I think it was by far. He made plays when he needed to, but didn't take risks with the football like he has in previous weeks.

His comments following the SF loss were telling to me, and he seemed to do a much better job of playing under control. He had 2 nice throws to Quick against the zone, where Quick managed to find the soft spot and Davis got him the ball on time. Davis also mentioned after the SF game that he needed to "not abandon" the pocket so quick, and he did a much better job of that this week as well.

I just don't get the term "dink and dump" passing, when it keeps drives alive, rather than just letting it fly for the sake of passing up an open receiver underneath. Which is EXACTLY what the problem was in the SF game.

This is not meant to be a shot at the FF folks, although it will come across that way. It seems if he isn't piling up huge yardage games, ie 300+ yards, then he must not be playing all that well. He was efficient, and effective. 18-21 Completion % is off the charts. And something we are accustomed to seeing OTHER QBs accomplish against us. It was nice to see him do it to arguably the best secondary in the NFL.

Davis also had a great long pass to Givens late. I am not crazy about the dink and dunk but if that is all that is there you have to take it. Plus considering the last few weeks, with the amount of pass rushing pressure he was used to being under, Davis did a very good job of hanging in the pocket against Seattle. Some QBs might have been much more jumpy and ready to flee the pocket, especially after a 5 sack game the week before.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Probably my fault on Brian Quick. I picked him up 2 weeks ago in fantasy. Stupid, stupid thing to do. One of my only rules in fantasy is to not play Rams players. Which is why I'll stay away from Tre Mason, even though I need to replace CJ Spiller.

Replace him with C. Reynolds.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Dink & dunk= keeps drives alive, keeps chains moving, opens up the deep pass....There is nothing wrong with dinking & dunking...I wish people would take this off the list of complaints...I really disagreed with the term when Bradford did it, and it makes no sense now...Read your progressions, nobody open, get some yards to the RB or TE underneath....Only if people are open downfield is dinking & dunking a problem...Any problems with the QB play yesterday, check Davis' QBR...128 or something like that...awesome...we still need better production in the run game...so better blocking...but offense did what they had to do...esp. on that TD drive in the second half.

 

[Fatbot]

I think we'd all agree that you have to have the right mix of aggression in the passing game, not be extreme dink & dunk or extreme in forcing things. I simply felt this game leaned too heavily in the dink & dunk, and if the game was decided on that merit (without special teams help), the Rams would have lost. The failed dink pass on 3rd down (to a receiver covered by Richard Sherman of all people) completely swung the balance of the game and at that point (according to Pro Football Reference) the Rams had only a 42% chance of winning. Luckily Fisher called the fake punt that saved the game. What the Rams needed to put that game away earlier without the special teams fluke were a couple more strikes like the 30-yard Givens reception -- that one play gained 16.8% chance of winning, but just doing it once is not enough to win a game.

 

[Big Game]

From a TV only point of view 'disappeared' seems accurate after all of the targets Quick got in the first two games. I am not arguing with you though and this is why I asked for opinions from fans at the game. Watching on TV it is difficult to tell if Davis threw so much to RBs and TEs because WR weren't open or if it was just the gameplan and design of the plays run. I think Quick had a drop too, or was that Britt (similar size and shape, cant recall which). I figure many of the Runningback throws is due to not having WRs open and they are mostly checkdowns. There did seem to be a few times where Davis had trouble finding someone to throw to. You make a good point about there only being 28 passing attempts.

Britt had the drop but they where doubling Quick and Cook at times which left the other WR's or TE's and RB's with the one on one matchup. Davis made the right reads and correct throws.

 

[Fatbot]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to judge a secondary on how well they play Peyton Manning and that Denver offense. Of course a Hall of Famer and one of the greatest QBs ever is going to light the 49ers up, they do that to every team. The 9ers still have a great secondary.

Well you could instead judge the 49ers on how they gave up 244 and 2 TDs (career high) to Drew Stanton? Not exactly a Hall of Famer? There's just no basis to call that secondary great. You can argue they have had a couple good games, but they have also had a couple stinkers. To me that says average, and the stats (#17 ranked) bear that out, too.

 

[CoachO]

I think we'd all agree that you have to have the right mix of aggression in the passing game, not be extreme dink & dunk or extreme in forcing things. I simply felt this game leaned too heavily in the dink & dunk, and if the game was decided on that merit (without special teams help), the Rams would have lost. The failed dink pass on 3rd down (to a receiver covered by Richard Sherman of all people) completely swung the balance of the game and at that point (according to Pro Football Reference) the Rams had only a 42% chance of winning. Luckily Fisher called the fake punt that saved the game. What the Rams needed to put that game away earlier without the special teams fluke were a couple more strikes like the 30-yard Givens reception -- that one play gained 16.8% chance of winning, but just doing it once is not enough to win a game.

So you are saying that the game situation, score, field position, etc had no bearing on how they called the game? You can say what you want about the punt return, but it happened, and it had an effect on all of the things I just mentioned. Would it have mattered if Tavon would have returned a punt for 90 yards and a TD? No one would be questioning that happening, or saying they had to rely on a "trick play". Bottom line on that return, they scouted the Seahawks, and EXECUTED a very difficult play. So why that seems to have some sort of correlation to how they went about their attack on offense, other than how it impacted the score at the time, doesn't make much sense to me. They also were able to sustain THREE scoring drives, without the benefit of forcing the issue. They managed to do this and NOT turn the ball over. And while many might not care for the way they went about it. I will take the "substance over style" each and every week. And IMO, its exactly what they should do to give themselves the best chance to win. Davis has started 5 games now. In TWO of them they have thrown less that 30 passes. In THREE of them they have thrown more than 40 passes. Care to guess which two games they won?

You can point out the 3rd down "dink" pass to Austin, and I agree with you. But that is on Davis, not on Schottenheimer for the play call. If you look there, were options on that play, and our QB chose to throw it to the guy covered by Sherman. And as far as the "strike" to Givens, go back and watch the game, and see if you can tell me how many other times Seattle played straight man to man. They caught them in the right coverage and Davis made the play. But lets not pretend that ball was in the air for 30 yards. It was an intermediate crossing route and was a fairly safe throw. The ball was in the air for 20 yards, much the same as the 19 yard completion to Quick in the first scoring drive, and again the 14 yard play to Quick again later.

 

[CoachO]

I think we'd all agree that you have to have the right mix of aggression in the passing game, not be extreme dink & dunk or extreme in forcing things. I simply felt this game leaned too heavily in the dink & dunk, and if the game was decided on that merit (without special teams help), the Rams would have lost. The failed dink pass on 3rd down (to a receiver covered by Richard Sherman of all people) completely swung the balance of the game and at that point (according to Pro Football Reference) the Rams had only a 42% chance of winning. Luckily Fisher called the fake punt that saved the game. What the Rams needed to put that game away earlier without the special teams fluke were a couple more strikes like the 30-yard Givens reception -- that one play gained 16.8% chance of winning, but just doing it once is not enough to win a game.

So you are saying that the game situation, score, field position, etc had no bearing on how they called the game? You can say what you want about the punt return, but it happened, and it had an effect on all of the things I just mentioned. Would it have mattered if Tavon would have returned a punt for 90 yards and a TD? No one would be questioning that happening, or saying they had to rely on a "trick play". Bottom line on that return, they scouted the Seahawks, and EXECUTED a very difficult play. So why that seems to have some sort of correlation to how they went about their attack on offense, other than how it impacted the score at the time, doesn't make much sense to me. They also were able to sustain THREE scoring drives, without the benefit of forcing the issue. They managed to do this and NOT turn the ball over. And while many might not care for the way they went about it. I will take the "substance over style" each and every week. And IMO, its exactly what they should do to give themselves the best chance to win. Davis has started 5 games now. In TWO of them they have thrown less that 30 passes. In THREE of them they have thrown more than 40 passes. Care to guess which two games they won?

You can point out the 3rd down "dink" pass to Austin, and I agree with you. But that is on Davis, not on Schottenheimer for the play call. If you look there, were options on that play, and our QB chose to throw it to the guy covered by Sherman. And as far as the "strike" to Givens, go back and watch the game, and see if you can tell me how many other times Seattle played straight man to man. They caught them in the right coverage and Davis made the play. But lets not pretend that ball was in the air for 30 yards. It was an intermediate crossing route and was a fairly safe throw. The ball was in the air for 20 yards, much the same as the 19 yard completion to Quick in the first scoring drive, and again the 14 yard play to Quick again later.

 

[Athos]

They made plays when we needed them on Sunday. I'd still like a quality pairing with Quick outside though.

If ours RBs improve and Mason makes leaps in pass protection...

I also wanna say, sign me up for Amari Cooper or that kid from WVU. Bring sizzle to size and strength.

 

[Jumava1968]

Sorry gotta disagree with this. Seahawks yes, but the 49ers secondary is garbage (ask Peyton).

SF secondary is not as good as Sea but the 49ers pressured Davis throughout the game and rushed some of his throws.

 

[Fatbot]

SF secondary is not as good as Sea but the 49ers pressured Davis throughout the game and rushed some of his throws.

Yes agreed, the pass rush and not the SF secondary is what hurt the Rams -- still not sure why the Rams couldn't block a preschool level line stunt, but oh well. Hopefully that's in the "we fixed that" pile.

 

[Rams43]

Dink & dunk= keeps drives alive, keeps chains moving, opens up the deep pass....There is nothing wrong with dinking & dunking...I wish people would take this off the list of complaints...I really disagreed with the term when Bradford did it, and it makes no sense now...Read your progressions, nobody open, get some yards to the RB or TE underneath....Only if people are open downfield is dinking & dunking a problem...Any problems with the QB play yesterday, check Davis' QBR...128 or something like that...awesome...we still need better production in the run game...so better blocking...but offense did what they had to do...esp. on that TD drive in the second half.

Agreed, Champ.

Lots to be said for keeping the ball out of the hands of a QB such as Wilson, too. Taking what's there accomplishes that.

CoachO is right, and it's winning football. I'm ready for some winning football. How about you? Lol.

 

[LACHAMP46]

You can point out the 3rd down "dink" pass to Austin, and I agree with you. But that is on Davis, not on Schottenheimer for the play call.

That one play Coach0, I wished they'd have run that route where the wr runs in, then curls to the out. Not sit down....Do/did they ever run that one with Tavon in OTAs/camp?

 

[CoachO]

That one play Coach0, I wished they'd have run that route where the wr runs in, then curls to the out. Not sit down....Do/did they ever run that one with Tavon in OTAs/camp?

I think you are talking about the arrow route that Amendola excelled at.

I have seen them try to run it with Austin, but honestly he doesn't run it very well. He tried to be TOO quick and doesn't sell the in cut enough.

Pettis and TJ Moe ran it better.