On Wednesday at his locker, Alex Smith explained to Bay Area reporters why taking a sack is not all that bad.
Here’s Smith’s exact quote: “A sack’s not the end of the world. Sometimes the best thing is to protect it in the pocket and take a sack. A lot of times, the ability to make plays with your feet, you get out of the pocket, you scramble, you run, you make a play, those things don’t happen if you’re constantly just trying to get rid of the ball. A little give and take there. When you look at it, yeah we don’t want to take them, but some of them aren’t terrible.”
Alex Smith is doing great this season – all deference to him and the 49ers – but the facts don’t bear out his assertion.
Tom Moore, Peyton Manning’s offensive coordinator on the Indianapolis Colts for 14 seasons, did a study on sacks. This is what his study revealed: For every offensive series in which a sack occurs, the offense’s probability to score a touchdown or a field goal drops to one in seven. That’s a 14 percent chance.
Moore’s study also revealed that a penalty is not nearly as detrimental because the offense gets a repeat down to gain back the lost yardage. When a quarterback takes a sack, he loses yardage and the down.
Perhaps Alex Smith and the 49ers should reevaluate their thinking with regard to taking a sack.
49ers RSS feed
Loading ...
Grant, come on. You are kidding, right? Yes, a sack kills a drive. But, as Alex and Roman say, it doesn’t lose the game like a turnover does. Your statistics show how a sack kills a drive, but not how it affects the game. Look at the whole picture. They say it is better to take a sack than risk a turnover. It is better to punt than turn the ball over. True.
An interception on a deep pass is like a punt, and there’s always a chance the refs will call defensive pass interference.
Maybe some other mortal punter, but not like Andy Lee’s punts.
You also cannot overlook the momentum change that can occur in a game due to a single turnover (such as a deep pass getting intercepted). It is demoralizing for the QB and the offense. And in our case, pro bowler Andy Lee can punt it way further than Alex Smith throwing it deep. Didn’t our opponents have the worst starting field position last year too? I’m sure that’s part of Harbaugh’s game plan.
While an interception on the Offenses side of the field shortens it for the Opposing QB.
Putting the Defense in a bad situation and keeps them on the field longer and the QB on the bench longer. Tough to bounce back from that.
Do you honestly think Manning would have won their last game and had a 500 yard day if the Giants Defense wasn’t keeping the other team scoreless for most of the game?
Face it Grant you’re wrong brotha. It’s okay we’re all wrong sometimes. Nothing to be ashamed of. ;)
Well this would be true if Alex Smith was a better “punter” than Andy Lee, but he’s not. I’m willing to bet Moore didn’t factor having a great ST/punting unit in his calculations. Smiths assertion is correct because the team has Lee.
>>An interception on a deep pass is like a punt
Only if it’s on 4th down.
So you’d prefer on 1st and 10 that instead of taking a sack, Alex just heave it downfield because it’s like a punt and there’s a possibility of pass interference? That’s ludicrious. Without taking down, distance and field position into account, your assertion makes absolutely no sense. Now if we’re talking specifically about 3rd downs, I’ll take Andy Lee’s 50.9 yd/punt over Alex’s cyborgian, (aaaaand sarcasm) ICBM-esque arm any day.
And I meant 4th downs.
Grant,
Depends where you are on the field. Listen Smith doesn’t care if he takes a sack as long as it isn’t a turnover. Same reason he’s not chucking it downfield. He equates Long passes to turnovers.
Right now it’s working… But you are correct. A deep pass that is intercepted can be as good as a punt depending where our field position is at the time of the throw. Smith is not a quick strike QB. He relies on his OC to dissect a D and he’s happy to walk away with 3.
Jeezus Bay, just stop with the lunacy. Smith will take shots down field. He’s done it in 2 games now. But why instigate a throw for throw contest with Opponents who have Rodgers and Stafford and stacked Receiver Corps?
Face it homie, Alex’s game works and the Time of Possession says it does. Taking constant shots down field (which you seem enamored with) speeds up the game and puts the ball right back into the other team’s hands. Putting our Defense out on the field longer.
Why does our Defense seem to get better deep into the second half? Because our Time of Possession allows them longer time to rest on the sideline. This is why the Saints lost. This is why the Packers lost and this is why every team we face that has an “Elite” QB has a difficult time matching up against our Defense. They can’t Run, so they HAVE TO throw. Having to throw plays right into our hands.
But yeah let’s go ahead and do what you want. Harbs and Roman don’t know anything. Don’t even know why Jed didn’t call you instead. You have all the answers regarding Smith it seems. >.>
Red Herring. Maybe a deep interception is like a punt, but Alex is not usually taking a sack to avoid “a deep interception”. We mostly throw short and intermediate passes, so the relative merits of a deep interception vs a punt isn’t very instructive.
your article is missing a very key stat, what is the percentage that an offense scores points on a possession with no sacks. Without something to compare to that 17% that you threw out there is COMPLETELY useless!
Grant,
I would take a sack over a turnover everytime over a turnover. The only time it bother’s me is when he is scrambling outside the tackle box and takes either a sack or loss instead of throwing the ball away.
>>But you are correct. A deep pass that is intercepted can be as good as a punt depending where our field position is at the time of the throw.
No, you are both wrong. what happens if that interception happens on 1st down? It’s not like a punt at all.
ribico
Moreso, what about the Int return? Punting unit has 11 guys chasing the returner the whole time. Int return, those offensive guys were doing something else a moment ago. HUGE difference.
Grant,
How can anyone question Harbaughs methods/philosophy since being here in SF?
Tom Moore was a great coordinator but study or not, I think JH has this thing under control.
All good points, DS abd sflcr. It’s crazy for Grant to even suggest they are similar.
The argument that a punt and a deep interception are the same is one of the biggest fallacies ever posted on this blog. Here’s how I see that they differ:
Punt: Designed play used as a last resort after the team has been unable to convert on 3rd down. The play is designed to have the punter kick it in a specific direction 40-60 yards downfield. The rest of the kicking team is prepared to defend the return with scheme and has the personnel on the field to have 10 possible bodies in position to take the runner down as quickly as possible. In most cases the punter kicks it high to provide enough hang time for his team to get there in a position to make the play. It’s a designed play to set the team up in the best possible situation after a bad offensive outcome.
Interception: A misguided pass caught by the defense instead of the offensive player. In most cases it occurs before 4th down, and causes the loss of opportunity to convert or score (bad). In addition, the personnel on the field are not designed to chase down the DB who intercepted the pass (OL for example), nor are they in position to trap said DB, resulting in typically bigger returns than most punts. This results in better field position for the opposition than they typically would for a punt.
Further to my proof: if punts were equal to interceptions wouldn’t we see teams passing on 4th and 10, 4th and 15, 4th and 20 instead of punting. There is also inherent risk that the long pass on 4th down has no guarantee of being caught by either team. If the result is an imcompletion, it would be even worse as the opposing team would get to take over at the line of scrimmage, having a MUCH shorter distance to go.
Think about what you’re saying before you post such nonsense. This is just an argument the stat-hungry, fantasy football hounds make since they want their players to make nothing but big plays and put up gaudy numbers. It’s not a realistic, or smart way to play, and this team is smart.
@calistoga
Good detail man.
There is one thing I’d like to point out though. When teams are in that “no mans zone” where it is too far to attempt a FG, and a punt stands a chance to enter the endzone, HC’s favor the punt far too often instead of going for it on 4th down.
Often times the field position lost on a failed 4th down attempt is negligible (like 10-20 yards) compared to the chance to get into scoring range.
4th down conversions give a team chance to score points if they gain another say, 15 yards. If you fail, the opposing team has to gain more than 15 yards to get into scoring range. So, it would be better if you went for it. The NFL is about scoring the most points. And if I were to offer you 3 points (possibly 7) in a bet with 10-20 yards of field position, I bet you’d take that. But HC’s don’t take that bet very often in the “no mans zone”.
All of this is especially if you don’t have a great punter.
Of course the other issue is that offensive players are not good tacklers. Sorry if this was already mentioned, didn’t have time to read through all the comments.
We see this all the time, QB throws an interception and the DB gets a real nice return or a TD because… offensive players are not very good defenders.
I’d rather see Smith throw it away first but a sack is preferable to ANY turnover. Turnovers are momentum changers. Momentum rules this game.
Interception is not as good as a punt as stated above. Also, the special teams on a punt are in position to handle a run back and the blocking schemes. When the offense turns it over, it is basically a jailbreak with an inordinate amount of 300 lb linemen trying to chase a DB and defensive players taking any opportunity to blindside any skill players inadequately prepared for a tackle. Mass chaos vs. controlled chaos seems pertinent. Mitigating risk (and opponents possessions) while maximizing opportunities is what this coaching staff seems to do rather well.
An INT is the same as a punt? That’s absurd. Hoping the referees throw a PI flag is as ludicrous as a financial plan that relies on winning the lottery one day. I guess it could happen. 1 in 250 million.
Following that mentality though, taking the sack is even better than the INT/Punt because of all the new rules protecting the QB. There could be a personal foul call not only giving your team the first down, but making the rushers cognisant of the chance the referee will interpret a tackle as a personal foul.
It has a less than 1/7 shot. If you did some investigative work instead of replying with nonsense, you would have already seen that 2012 has had the fewest PI calls in the last ten years through 2 games.
You don’t have to be a 49ers fan, I just ask that you actually do “your own” research on football before you spout off with something and torpedo the credibility of the PD you’ve tagged in the article.
“protect it in the pocket and take a sack”
Grant, I believe the premise here is a sack versus forcing a pass and thus a turnover. In that case, there is a direct correlation to turnovers and losses – ask CNewton.
BTW, I remember JMo taking 7 sacks against Philly and winning the game in 1989. Turnovers in that game were even 3 to 3.
Taking a sack reduces prob of scoring by 14%.. throwing an INT reduces the prob of scoring by 100%
Not by 14 percent, to 14 percent. The offense has a 1-in-7 chance of scoring any points after a sack.
But as has been stated, I’d rather have the opportunity to convert. 14% is still better than 0%. ;)
Grant there are several comments by people making good points against your argument that Alex Smith and the 49ers are wrong. But you only respond to the ones where you can find flaws. Why don’t you man up and acknowledge your wrong on this one?
1 in 7 chance of scoring on THAT possession. Long view though? Live to fight another day. Micro vs. macro. Any statistics on % of times intercepting team converts turnover into points? Effect of momentum swing? I know that the 9′ers scored right after Bowman’s pick.
I think one statistic that is missing in this discussion is what is the regular scoring % for any drive. 14% might seem really low but what is the NFL average chance of scoring on any given drive?
I tried to find a link to that, but could only find links promising the stat, but not showing it.
I short I feel the one in seven (14%) number is not as significant a difference in scoring as a turnover (0% chance to score).
At least Grant has credentials and is employed to be writing this stuff. 23welcher is just a troll and needs to exposed for the hater that he is!
The chance for an INT is about more than just scoring. Sure it is easy enough to trash the thought process on that one thought, but it’s more complex in Harbaugh’s mind.
There is a time limit to the game. You throw the INT you are doing two things. You are giving the opposing team up to a 14 % to score and you are also allowing them to control the clock.
The NFL is not one dimensional. This thought process of encouraging chancing an INT is. It is why SF is able to impose their will for 60 minutes and why SF is successful.
Perhaps someone should do a quick check and see how many points are made off of turnovers. It’s kind of a mute point. The reasoning of the article is flawed and ignorant.
When his type of thinking results in 5 INTs, it’s a working proposition. Add 10 INTs and remove 10 sacks and see where that leaves a 2011 team with that limited offense. Might be time to let ‘er rip a little this year, but you can’t fault Smith’s comments over the last 18 months.
A sack reduces a drive’s chances of scoring to 17%, a turnover reduces a drive’s chance of scoring to 0%, and increases an opponents chances of scoring. I believe the stats are in his favor.
That’s a false dichotomy.
No. No, it’s not.
How in the world is that a false dichotomy? J is proving that a turnover is worse than a sack. Ergo, Alex’s quote “a sack is not the worse thing in the world” is correct because a turnover is a thing in the world that is worse than a sack.
False dichotomy: If Smith does not take a sack, he will commit a turnover.
Yes I agree that is a false dichotomy, but to assert that Alex is wrong you are saying you think that chance of scoring on a particular drive being reduced to 14% = “end of the world”. Moore’s study sounds like it is limited to the results of that single drive, not to the results of a game.
Alex in his interview refers to a study that shows that the single highest correlation between winning and any variable is turnover differential. So even after people took sacks and therefore reduces their chances of scoring, they were more likely to win if they didn’t turn it over.
In order to avoid the false dichotomy above what we are missing is an estimate of how much he is reducing his chance of a turnover by taking a sack.
How is that a false dichotomy? He wasn’t saying anything other than a sack is a turnover. He was saying a turnover is worse than a sack.
Of course. The point is you should avoid sacks. Most penalties are better than sacks. Tom Moore wasn’t saying the quarterback should force bad throws into coverage to avoid sacks.
Grant
If AS takes a sack, he protects the ball almost 100% of the time. If AS trie to throw just before he is hit, the defender has a good shot at hitting him with his arm cocked. The worst position any player on the field can be in to try to protect the ball.
If AS throws it away carelessly without setting his feet and such, it won’t be accurate. Which greatly increase the odds of an Int.
JH and AS and the whole football world are right on this one.
Grant, do you seriously think that Alex Smith does not know that you should try and avoid sacks?
he’s saying there are worse things than sacks; and he’s right. I don’t know why you’re contesting it when you’re then agreeing with it.
Also, there’s only one penalty you can take to avoid a sack: intentional grounding. which is worse than a sack.
All Alex was saying was that it’s better to take a sack than to force things and turn the ball over. You are simultaneously agreeing with, and contesting, this point.
That’s not what Alex said. He said he prefers to try to extend the play rather than get rid of the ball quickly.
Grant are you implying Smith looks to take sacks or that when when the line breaks down he gives up and takes the sack?
No, watching the games we all know that Smith does his best to avoid sacks. His only point is to be smart and, sometimes it is the smart decision to take the sack.
If you wanna talk about his sack #s being too high, or maybe your opinion is he makes the wrong decision to take a sack on a play too often. Those are discussion points but not the idea the sometimes it’s the smart decision to take a sack.
“He said he prefers to try to extend the play rather than get rid of the ball quickly.” Isn’t that a good thing?
If the QB isn’t taking too many sacks.
Hofer pointed out how the vast majority of Super Bowl winners don’t allow 40+ sacks in a season.
Grant
AS had 2 sacks against GB where he was barely given 2 seconds. That is all on the OL. Not on AS.
I never said they were his fault. I was just disagreeing with a point he made. Sacks are very bad and should be avoided. Rodgers figured that out in 2010 when he won the Super Bowl.
Grant, was I joking that night I logged in as Crabtree and since that one comment, have I done it ever again?
No, you have not.
Grant where can I send you this bottle of beer?
Grant
No offense to hof, but that 40 sack thing means nothing to this team. If not for a freak ST play, we are in the Super Bowl. This year we bring back the same major players and we are the best team in the NFL. What is similar? AS took/takes sacks. AS didn’t turn the ball over then or now.
Case closed for what matters for this team. TO’s do. Sacks, nowhere close.
Michael prime Cratree time oneniner latino heat,
Why are you begging Grant for vindication. I thought you were the log tough guy. Don’t sound so tough anymore. Went from bully to BIT– in a real hurry. What a joke you are. See what happens when you call names. The name is 23Jordan clown. Dont forget it quad poster!
Grant was I joking when I was telling a joke and have I ever joked again? what a clown. Internet blog bully tough guy. Stop begging for support from Grant. He’s got work to do. Bwahahahahahaha!
@23welcher:
prime is spelt with a capital “P”.
Welcher says “I thought you were the log tough guy”
Blog is spelt BLOG, not log.
The name is 23welcher clown not just 23jordan clown, never forget the welcher, nobody on here will, definately not me bro!
You guys really are looking for anything, aren’t you? Yes, a sack kills a drive. But it’s better to take one and hold onto the ball vs. throwing the ball away and risking a turnover. Or trying to grow the ball away and risking a turnover. Or trying to get out of a sack and risking a turnover. More than sacks, turnovers affect a game as a whole. Better to lose a down and be able to punt than to lose possession and give up a TD.
Greg Roman acknowledged that a sack hurts the O’s chances for points on a drive as you mention. But he said it’s generally rare for a sack to be the cause of losing a game. Of course no one is saying that a sack can’t result in a loss at a critical point in a game. The point was SOMETIMES it’s better to take the sack and not risk a turnover. The right decision depends on the circumstances
Actually Moore is WRONG.
He didn’t mention Loss of Down penalties NOR did he mention HOLDING which is 10 yards. Average sack takes less than 6 yards. Yeah you get a do over with a holding call but say you were 2nd and 6 after a Run play on first Down. Holding on 2nd now makes you 2nd and 16 and puts you squarely in Pass mode. Much more difficult to bounce back from than a Sack which puts you at 3rd and whatever yardage plus the average.
His numbers don’t bear out. They might have for the Colts while Manning was their QB, but not every QB runs fake audibles at the Line of Scrimmage to get the yards back and no Defense will be caught napping.
Also Smith has 3 things that Manning didn’t have going for him.
1) Strong Punter should the down and distance not get converted(Lee’s bionic leg) and a solid Kicker on the Opposing’s side of the field.
2) A solid Defense who is yardage stingy on Rushing Downs as well as Completion Stingy. Calvin Johnson didn’t have a good day against them in Detroit. Nor did he have a good day at the Stick. He’s easily top 5 in the league atm.
3) Solid Rushing attack to get a better average on Rushing Downs(6+ YPC or thereabouts) as well as a Top 3 Tightend to get the yards that are lost on the sack.
Maybe Moore’s numbers don’t support Alex Smith but the 49ers numbers DO. >.< lmao!
But what’s the probability when the ball is turned over? Odds are that is higher. Plus another thing to consider is that when you take a sack, the clock keeps ticking unless the ball is spiked or a timeout is taken. If you throw the ball away, then the play clock stops. If the Niners were behind, then the sack would be devastating. But so far that hasn’t been the case. If Smith takes a sack instead of throwing it away while his team is dominating the other team, then that is a smart sack because it’s takes away time off the clock for the other team to try to make a comeback in.
I think that we were behind in the 5 Comeback games where Smith took Sacks weren’t we. I’m pretty sure that the Philly game he was sacked more than Vick. Yet he had the intestinal fortitude to hang in there and take the sack.
Now compare what he looks like in the pocket compared to oh say any one of the QBs’ who throw it up there trying to get rid of the ball as soon as they feel pressure. I dunno, say Carson Palmer?
So I’m not quite sure how taking sacks gives the other team the advantage. Their guy has to stay upright too. Time is ticking down for this team half the game as it is. Taking a Sack isn’t gonna kill us when we average a longer ToP than our opposition has.
There is NO one statistic in the game of Football. It truly is a game of inches. ^_^
Smith is definitely right. SOMETIMES it’s better to take a sack. As in, let’s say it’s 3rd and 10. You’re up by two scores late it in the game, trying to run the clock down. You call a passing play with the idea that if it’s there, take it. If there’s nothing there to take, it is DEFINITELY better to take the sake than it is to try and force a throw. Forcing a throw could mean you stop the clock or turn it over when you don’t want to. Taking a sack on purpose means that you’re protecting the ball and you keep the clock going. Pretty simple.
“For every offensive series in which a sack occurs, the offense’s probability to score a touchdown or a field goal drops to one in seven.”
How often does the offense score after a turnover occurs? 0/7
Exactly.
My only concern about sacks is an injury. Taking a sack is preferable to a turnover.
In the end, the only thing that matters is WINNING the game.
U can’t compare any payton led offense to the one we run.. we stress ball control above all else
watch the Roman interview where he addresses this issue. He sums it up perfectly. Sacks do kill drives, that is true. But they are better than turnovers because the team that loses the turnover battle, loses the game most of the time. By that logic sacks are better than turnovers. Not talking about deep interceptions down the field that are effectively a punt. I’m talking about a QB takes a hit trying to make a throw and he fumbles when he could have pulled it down and taken the sack. Its a case by case basis
http://www.49ers.com/media-gallery/videos/Press-Pass-Greg-Roman/6a824620-f453-4bdb-940b-48e9206e6e61
I thought he was implying that taking a penalty was better, but intentional grounding usually also results in loss of down. So what is your “better than a sack” strategy, Grant?
It would also be interesting to know what Moore reported as an offense’s chance of scoring on any possession.
When did it become that the only alternative to a sack is a turnover?
Sometimes when you throw it away to avoid the sack you incure an intentionaly grounding penalty which also losses yards and downs. I think I would rather have AS take the sack then the horror of an interception or the possibility of intentionaly grounding penalty. In most, not all but most times during a sack you dont have time to throw the ball deep. Also one has to remember taking the sack a fumble sometimes results.
@undercenter
“Also one has to remember taking the sack a fumble sometimes results.”
True. But if AS is “taking the sack” then he has that extra bit of time to ensure he is protecting the ball, reducing the odds of a fumble. As opposed to AS “getting sacked” where he was blindsided lets say. In that instance, AS didn’t have that extra bit of time to protect the ball.
So, the two situations; “AS taking a sack” and “AS getting sacked” are no the same thing. “Getting sacked” has a higher risk of a TO than “taking sack”.
Alex Smith was sacked three times in the Detroit game. Once it was 1st and 5 and the sack made it 2nd and 17. After a 12 yard run by Gore, the 49ers had 3rd and 5. The 2nd sack was also on 1st down. The sack made it 2nd and 20. The 49ers hit Vernon for a 13 yard gain and made it 3rd and 7. The 3rd time it was 1st and 10. On the sack, Kyle Vandenbosh drew a personal foul and the 49ers got the 1st down.
Against Detroit, the 49ers scored on 2 of the 3 drives that had a sack in them.
Against Green Bay he was sacked 4 times:
3rd and 1 by Clay Matthews.
1st and 10 by Charles Woodson (49ers would get the 1st down and eventually scored the touchdown)
1st and 10 by Woodson and Matthews (49ers got 1st down on next play)
2nd and 10 by Matthews on 49ers final meaningful drive.
When Alex Smith has gotten sacked this year consider these stats:
71% of them occurred on 1st down.
86% occurred on 1st or 2nd down.
43% of the time the 49ers scored on the drive.
14% of the time the 49ers draw a personal foul penalty.
When Alex gets sacked, usually it means he is unable to throw it away. So his options are intentional grounding or force it somewhere. Intentional grounding is a loss of down penalty. Also, when he takes a sack, he’s doing it smartly. Of the 18 times Alex Smith has dropped back to throw the ball on 3rd down, only once has he taken a sack. To say Alex should just throw it up there to somebody or force the ball when 71% of the time it’s 1st down? Not smart.
Good stuff! Thanks for listing the stats. It would be cool to know what the play(s) were for each down AS was sacked and where the specific breakdowns were in the play.
In the Lions game, 2 sacks came on the same drive in the third quarter. On the first one, Vanden Bosch got flagged for a face mask penalty, so the Niners gained 12 yards.
The second sack came on the same drive. Smith got sacked for 10 yard loss on first down. On second and 20 he completed a 13-yard pass to Vernon Davis. On third and 7, Smith his Crabtree for a 3-yard gain. On fourth and four, Akers made a 36-yard field goal.
The thing about our sacks is that there are times where Amith has time to throw the ball away. Throw the ball at a receivers feet. We know he knows how to do that. Taking a sack kills a drive. Throw it out of bounds to the line if scrimmage. An intentional grounding penalty is a loss of down. Hell, when you get sacked, you’re losing the yardages and the down anyway. Why not throw it away?? You mean Amith is this vastly improved and accurate, efficient QB and he does not throw a ball away when he’s under pressure??? C’MON MAN!!!
I’d rather loose a down than possession. Every series should end in a kick.
Good thing to bring up, but my thoughts echo the majority of your readers… This article doesn’t not explore the whole situation. A turnover is really the worst thing you can do. I agree w/Alex and was actually thinking that as I was watching the Lions game. You can see when he gets wrapped up in the backfield that he goes out of his way not to lose/fumble the ball. No one wants to take a sack, but a turnover is a momentum shift that can really kill morale for the offense. Live to fight another day…
Woah, there Grant. The 2nd sack did not “lead to 4th and 4″. It led to 2nd and 20. You’re implying it came on 3rd down when it was on 1st down, led to 2nd and 20 which in turn led to 3rd and 7 which in turn led to 4th and 4.
I see the comment has since been edited. Correctly. Nevermind, then.
Cmon Grant, enough with the cheap knock-off Andy Kaufman routine find another team to follow.
Last year the 49ers scored TD’s on 17.4% of their drives. By taking a sack, it would decrease our chances to roughly 14%. To me, a 3.4% difference is a statistically insignificant difference.
Amazing how you try to find any reason to snipe at this team over minutia. The Niners have started the year with a bang and Smith is a big reason for their success. He hasn’t throw an interception since last Thanksgiving, but you want to criticize him for his “interpretation” of taking a sack. The Niners are 16-4 in their last 20 games. Try and write something educational as to why. Guess what, Smith’s taking sacks instead of committing turnovers might have contributed to that success.
Wow. Just admit you are wrong. Either way I am no longer clicking on anything that says Press Democrat.
Aaron Rogers disagrees with you as well….
Your false dichotomy response above is also incorrect, at least when looked at strategically. While on any individual play there is always a third option behind throwing an interception and taking a sack, the Alex Smith/Harbaugh/Roman strategy of taking sacks rather than the RISK of throwing a pick is a strategic one, designed to limit the overall # of turnovers. Because more important than any statistic you described above is the correlation between turnovers and losing. Therefore, the false dichotomy argument is invalid because–over time–risking throws on lost plays will (by the definition of risk) result in more turnovers. There are, in fact, two choices on the “lost plays” to which Alex is referring: take a sack or RISK more turnovers.
The headline of your piece is, with apologies, laughable and your post is reminiscent of political pieces by biased media outlets trying to stir up a story. That said, you got me to respond so….well done.
I think it all depends on the situation. People need to think before they get all riled up just cause they feel AS needs to be defended. It is better to take a sack and not force a pass that may lead to an interception. However, if you can purposely throw away a pass out of bounds and just make sure there’s a niner in the area, then this is better for AS to throw it away for three reasons. You don’t lose yardage and if it is only first or second down, it’ll be easier to still get a first down if its 10 yards as opposed to 17-18 yards. The second thing is field position. Third, the QB is going to get hit anyway when taking a sack, but on a throw away, if he still is hit, he can draw a roughing the passer penalty.
However, on a throw away, it’ll make AS look not as good at the end of the game for stat freaks cause if you throw as opposed to keeping it and taking a sack, your completion % will go down, with a sack, a pass attempt was never made.
Grant, you’re completely missing the point. Of course Alex doesn’t think that sacks are good things to do. But when there’s a bust in coverage and you don’t have time to throw it away, you can do one of three things:
1) force a throw
2) try to run
3) take a sack
If you force a throw you run a great risk of either having a turnover (far worse than a sack), or having intentional grounding (also worse than the average sack). Your chance of the throw being successful are much less than the 14% chance of scoring after taking the sack.
If you try to run you will almost always be sacked after going backwards.
You’re building a strawman by making it sound like Alex thinks sacks are a good thing. In reality, sacks are better than the alternative in certain, unfortunate situations. That’s all Alex is saying. It’s not like Alex can say “hey, timeout defender, I’d rather take a holding penalty here than a sack.”
So, basically, you’re wrong. And if you’re going to try and be literal and prove him wrong, it’s worth noting that there are many things in the world worse than a sack, such as death, poverty, and cancer.
I meant to say “bust in PROTECTION”
Brady – Did you mean to say you can do one of two things not three?
You can’t force a throw if you don’t have time to throw it away right?
depends on the situation. There are times as you’re being hit where you can try to force a throw – you don’t have enough time or space to throw it away – but you can try to force a very risky throw.
Maybe the point being made by Tom Moore’s statistics is that instead of taking the sack, it is better to throw the ball incomplete, even at the feet of an eligible receiver or over the head and out of bounds of a covered receiver along the sidelines. I don’t believe he ever was a proponent of throwing an interception in lieu of taking a sack. I think some posters here have misconstrued Coach Moore’s study.
It seems that what he said is being taken out of context… He isn’t saying that taking a sack is a good thing… nor is he saying that any of the sacks he took are… This seems to be the part people are over looking…
“A lot of times, the ability to make plays with your feet, you get out of the pocket, you scramble, you run, you make a play, those things don’t happen if you’re constantly just trying to get rid of the ball.”
I am sure that if you take into account mobile QBs scrambling out of the pocket & running the ball for a gain or at least getting back to the line of scrimmage, the number of times they get out of the pocket & attempt or complete a pass, & the number of times they take a sack but, it is a short loss in yards you will see what he is trying to say… Sometimes you take a sack in an attempt to make a play rather than just throwing the ball up for grabs or throwing the ball away… A chance at a safe gain is far better than no chance at all or throwing a low percentage downfield pass… Sometimes you can’t avoid a sack but he feels it is better than a interception which even if it is down in the opponents end of the field can be returned for a TD… & it is better than an intentional grounding loss of yards & down…
No one is going want to take a sack but, there are far worse things that can happen…
Grant.
I do not know much about this Tom Moore study, but the way you have stated is incomplete and makes little sense.
If there is 14% chance of scoring after a sack, what is it compared to? It can only be compared to drives without sack by the same personnel running the same offense from the same position on the field for a statistically significant number of plays, i.e, at least a few hundred plays.
Over a decade Tom Moore may have obtained data for the Peyton offense for hundreds of plays starting from the same area of the field and with a lot of the same personnel.
These probabilities also come with uncertainty bounds, e.g., it could be 14 +- 3% for one-sigma bounds with a 1000-play sample assuming a normal distribution.
These sorts of stats do not transfer from one offensive system to another. Unless proven otherwise with actual data, I’m inclined to believe there will no statistical difference in success rate for scoring in drives in the Harbaugh offense between drives with no sack and those with sacks with yards losses in the range of median +-2*sigma (say in the range 5-10 yards).
Every article you write illustrates how little you know about football
Every response you write illustrates how little you contribute to the blog.
Grant,
Stats can always be manipulated to show one’s argument. Here is the only stat we (and you should) care about. In playing the Harbaugh/Roman/Smith way of taking sacks, the 49ers are 16-4.
Grant,
Did Moore figure out the probability when there are no sacks?
When was the study done? Did you read the entire paper or a summary of some kind? Is the study online so that we could read it too? If so, provide a link please.
Why is it an automatic turnover if he doesn’t take a sack? Who says its going to be a turnover? That is playing scared. And that can’t happen in a dog fight of a game. Namely a playoff game. Its already starting to bother me with the conservative crap when we are dominating teams. That 10 yard sack vs the lions was NOT a good sack to take. This makes me nervous with teams like the giants or bears that can get at it with their front 4. I hope to god teams can’t rattle smith like before. I wonder if harbaugh fully trusts smith. Because that remark is straight from harbaughs method.
Harbaugh’s method is 15-3 regular season. Yeah, doesn’t really scare me.
Its a fair argument to make that Smith doesn’t always make the right decision on whether he should take the sack or not.
But that’s not what Grant is saying. He’s saying they are wrong in their idea that SOMETIMES it’s the right decision to take a sack.
I do think sometimes it’s the right decision to take a sack and I don’t think it’s being conservative, it’s just being smart.
Lets not look for reasons to doubt this team, they haven’t given us any yet.
DC 13
It is only fair if he is doing it at a statistically higher rate than other QB’s. Otherwise, that statement is meaningless. All QB’s take unnecessary sacks. It’s how many, and infinitely more important than the number is when (critical moment) that you can judge a QB by.
Agreed, I just meant I think it’s the only angle on this where we could have a discussion. On a certain play I might think Smith should have taken the sack, you might think differently.
I’m just having a hard time with people saying that the team is dumb because of the statement that sometimes it’s ok to take the sack
Md,
That’s exactly my point. That sack that Suh forced was unnecesary. Smith couldv’e kept rolling to his right and just threw the ball to the sidelines right at the line of scrimmage. That’s the only real flaw I see in his game right now. The offense masks some of his major issues. He’s got to have a better feel for the game in the pocket. Why take a 10 yard sack at that point in the game. Sometimes I feel like we rest on the ball too much. A fumle can turn the entire game around while we are playing conservative. I don’t like this Viking game. Something about this game. We can’t afford to get down early in that stadium. I’m telling you, that Jared Allen/ Slaley matchup is not good. I do not like this game. I think we squeak by but we could very easily lose this game man. This will be a test of how bad a head coach Singletary was. He’s got a lot of information on personal tendencies of this team. Not our scheme, but individual habits of players like Goldson rushing up too quickly to support the run and getting beat on the back end. Stuff like that.
23welcher are you sure it was Alex Smith and not some other QB, maybe Shaun Hill, or maybe it was Josh Johnson? No wait he was suppose to win the starters job in camp, right after the Niners were going to turf Alex in the offseason where you lock knotted in, never to return again if they resigned him, remember?
md,
Two things on that sack you reference, 1) Smith was trying to reload and make a play when Sun got to him, 2) He never got outside the tackle box to throw it away.
Are you serious with the “Harbaugh doesn’t trust him” stuff? If that were the case he wouldn’t be sending in multiple plays for Smith to choose from, etc. If you had watched Stanford during his time there with Luck you would realize how much this team mirrors those teams.
Hey Jack,
Alex actually ran out side of the tackle box and turned back around in an attempt to shake Suh. All he had to do was keep running right and drift back a bit and throw the ball to the line of scrimmage out of bounds. No harm no fould. Insteand he loses the 10, it kills the drive and we kick a field goal.
That’s not true, Suh forced him back inside after Alex pivoted. SuH has a motor and no way Alex was getting away or even close to throwing it away.
But if that were JJ, he would have ran it in for a touchdown, yeah, in never never land!
That’s not true Jordan. Smith spun away from the first man, and as he tried to reset his feet towards the right Suh got him.
It was a shot play with Moss deep down the right side and Crabtree dragging across to the right. The Lions had the play covered well. This was an instance where the sack wasn’t the worst thing to happen.
Jack,
You’re getting the sacks mixed up. Suh rushed from the right side. He lined up outside. Smith tried to get away from Suh and rolled back to the inside. That’s the sack that MD was talking aout. You’re talking about the other one where Smith spun around and Suh hit him. This one was in the 3rd quarter and they ended up kicking a field goal. On the one you’re talking aout, they punted.
Thanks Jordan. Will check it out.
Jack….. The trust thing wasn’t about running the offense. I meant it as letting smith not take a sack and try to make a play with his ability. Don’t think for one second I am doubting this team and qb… “And this goes for everyone on here” I just kept reading its an automatic turnover if he doesn’t take the sack. I think harbaugh and smith are doing a great job. BUT I still have a problem with the conservative play when we are up. It’s going to bite them eventually. It always does.
Wow, we are obsessing over sack plays on a game we were not in any way, shape, or form in danger of losing???
What’s the matter guys? There weren’t any plays were Moss was marginally open to obsess over?
Ha. No kidding.
At least the bitterness is less when we’re winning. :P
I would do exactly what they are doing and not read comments from some scrub writer.
This was kindergarten analysis. The question, as mentioned above numerous times, was taking a sack vs. forcing throws and increasing interceptions. Taking sacks is more beneficial than throwing interceptions. Is there any argument with this? N0 49er has stated that taking sacks is more beneficial than throwing the ball away or scrambling for some yardage, etc.
First of all, if your QB is getting sacked or hit, your O-line has likely broken down, which poses a bigger problem. Also, I recall Alex recently saying something to the effect of, QB’s are more likely to get hurt avoiding a sack rather than bracing for it and absorbing the hit in a “good position” while protecting the ball. That is on top of avoid the turnover. Just a thought.
Grant you are wrong, its not about scoring on every drive, its about playing the mind game and mind set. ” Sometimes the best thing is to protect it in the pocket and take a sack.” When its 3rd and 10 1:40 left in the game and we are up by seven, I will take a sack any day to run down the clock or use one of their timeouts. In fact I rather take a sack than throwing it away. Football cannot be explain by stats. If stats can explain football, then there is no point of playing is there?
BTW, other situations I rather take a sack than force a throw.
Ball in the red zone. Taking a sack will most likely still give us three pts with Akers
Ball around the enemy 40 yrds line (just outside the field goal range). Taking a sack will give Lee more real estate to punt the ball and ping them deep.
Any game that our defense is playing lights out…which is almost every game.
Chris/ Jason dont feel ad. You aren’t the 1st multiple poster on this blog.
Prime time= Michael Crabtree
Oneniner= Latino Heat.
One got banned. The other needs to be banned. Bwahahahah. So no worries Chris/ Jason.
And another should honor his bet!
Michael Prime Crabtree Time! Woo hoo! The notorious 1st double poster in the hisory of Grants blog. Chris/Jason , Michael Prime Crabtree Time is your fore father! Bwahahahah
Michael Prime Crabtree Time! Nice ring. I think you should own that. It’s yours. the notorious 1st double poster of the Grant Cohn blog. Guy holds conversations with himself. I wonder if he has any more names? Are you DS? Michael prime Crabtree time, are you DS? Bwahahahahahah! Answer the question double poster! Are you a triple poster?
Id rather be called a double poster than a low life welching troll hater, what do you think? Find more than one comment where I posted as Crabtree( joke BTW) and I vow to never return to the blog, lock knot it in, deal?
Michael prime Crabtree time,
The most notorious 1st double poster in the history of the Grant Cohn blog. Michael prime Crabtree time started it all. Grant burst his bubble and then came oneniner. Michael, great year. Keep up the good work!!! Bwahahahahaha! Are you a triple poster? Are you DS????? Do tell Michael DS prime XEV@9146726 time! Bwahahahaha
Prime
So much for the nicer 23J. Makes you wonder how many names 23J’s had. He’s taking this issue very seriously while ignoring all the BS Jason tossed my way. That was fair and balanced. Not.
23welcher I thought you and DS came to the agreement you would not mention each other when commenting to another blogger?
Do you really suffer from dimentia cause you seem to forget a lot of things, time to get the prescription refilled pal. You thought Alex looked like Hill in 2009, maybe you need glasses too.
DS,
Don’t get involved. We have an understanding. Right now I amaddressing the most notorious double poster on the blog. He needs to be put in his place. Don’t get involved and we will stay cordial. This is not your business. I’m addressing Michael prime Cratree time. The 1st double poster in the history of the Grant Cohn blog. I’m investigating to see how many other names he has.
Michael prime Crabtree time are you oneniner or latino heat as well. That would make you a quad poster. Considering your spelling is suspect, that means a 4 time poster. Are you a 4 time poster Michael? Answer me one niner! Latino Heat!!! Get used to this Michael. Youre getting this every time I see you up here. I tried to be civil but you couldn’t shut your mouth Michael oneniner prime Crabtree latino heat time! You need to e exposed for the crap you are, Prime Craptree time heat!
Michael prime Crabtree oneniner time Latino Heat time. The notorious quad poster on the Grant Cohn blog. You are an origional troll clown. A real piece of work. Are you still talking to yourself? Don’t do it. Chances are, you’re too dumb to answer. 4 screen names, what a classic you are! Prime crap!
Yes we do 23J. So why did you:
1. Get yourself involved with Jason posting or not as Chris. Surely you have seen his immature comments about me without cause.
2. Bring me up randomly in the 6:26 and 6:46 posts above?
Prime is onto something here. What started as him insulting you might actually have some validity to it. Why did you bring me up in a reply to Prime?
Prime Craptime Michael oneniner latino Heat,
Don’t talk, just listen. you’re talking to yourself but we know you’re used to it. Remember, your is spelled Y-O-U-R. it shows posession. You mean Y-O-U-R-E. Those are 2 different words. Look them up troll clown. Use them wisely grasshopper! Try a dictionary Michael prime Cratree Oneniner lation heat time. By the way, nice screen name, I mean 4 that is. What a clown! Prime Crap!
Guys I think that was the relentless fury 23welcher just released on me! WOW, pretty terrifying!
Look Jordan, you can get up on me all day, Im the king of this sh$t! You think your words can hurt me. C’mon man!
You talkin about football is all I really want from you cause everytime you make a comment or prediction or any statement for that matter you expose yourself as a complete zero! I don’t need to embarrass you, you do that all your own. So I’m gonna leave you alone tonight and just wait for you to make some football related comment and I’ll guarantee it will be the equivalent of what a 5 yearold would say. Just watch!
DS, are you Michael prime Crabtree Time Oneniner Latino Heat? If you’re not, my apologies. It’s just that he has so many screen names that I just needed to investigate this. He won’t answer me so maybe you will. If the answer is no, my bad. I’ll carry on with the quad poster. You know, Michael prime Crabtree time latino oneniner. Waht a loser he is. The 1st origional double on the blog that doesn’t even know the word YOU’RE. What a clown!
Michael prime Crabtree time oneniner latino heat,
That is 4 screen names right? just want to make sure I get your name right. No words for you until you learn how to use the english language. Don’t speak, just study. I’ve got an extra screen name for you, trailer trash! Bwahahahahaha. Now own that! I’ll be here all season!!!! Good night now!
Are you Neal? You sound awfully familiar, maybe your the double poster, hmmmmm? I sense stupidity in that both of you like to repeat the same insults. Ignorance, you thought Hill was Alex, Neal thought the Niners should sign someone in the supplemental draft which happened two weeks before his comment. And I sense the same worthlessness. Interesting, maybe I’ll do some investigating myself ,Fitzperv ring a bell?
Michael Prime Crabtree time oneniner latino Heat,
So I guess its back to te basement for you. What’s wrong? Is the battery dead on the neighbor’s computer? Did the neighbor cut the cord on your bootleg internet service? Did you forget to cash the cans in to pay the bill on your wack internet service? Is it dinner time at the zoo Primate? Is the library closed? You are some piece of work. Come back oneniner latino Prime Crabtree heat time! I’m not going anywhere! I’m not finished with you. Now how many screen names do you really have? I’m investigating you son! Quad poster needs to be banned!
Investigate away, my blog life is open for questioning, bring it on welcher!
DS thank you for adding that vital piece of information. You were online that night when I did that and so was Grant, he made a comment on it after I said it was a joke!
Now 23welcher, take that, roll it up and stick it in your pipe. Whewwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wrong again clown! Yeah!
YOUR, see how I spelled that dummy. YOUR life couldn’t questioned because you spend too much time on this blog. Everyone here kows you dont have a life, a job, a girlfriend, a wife, a family. Remember, YOU’RE( see how I used that) a primate. You’re in the wild. You, my friend are the ultimate loser. You actually want to take credit for being an Azz on a blog! What an idiot. Yeah, you’ve got that title. I’m sure nobody else wants it. But if you want to be a bully on a blog, please learn how to spell! C’mon man!
I used to make clowns like you cry at scholl daily with words. You have been abused your whole life so you try and lash out and get revenge on a blog. You are so terrifying Michael! You are hilarious. Now I’m going out to dinner Michael. I’m sure you don’t know what that is. It’s what us humans often do, especially on Fridays. My investigation continues. I’ll have more for you when you step out of line again dummy.
23J
Grant put an end to that speculation almost 1 year ago. Please stop with the double poster crap. You and bay share similar views, but I don’t disrespect your individual ity by claiming your the same all the time.
About the MC double poster crap, I was online at the time. You would have to be stupid to not know it was Prime. It was a joke for fun. But you have twisted it so long and so much, that one would think Prime had MC say racist remarks or something. It was kinda funny really. But you have turned it into something it never was.
Prime never disputed it was him. Get over it already will ya?
Prime Michael,
Did you pick up on the words that were spelled incorrectly? That’s your homework son!!!! And don’t use the spellcheck!
Have fun welcher, come back soon. Oh see the author of this blog comments regarding my double posting. Errrr, wrong again, that’s 4 times in 4 days. Say hi to Neal for me!
DS,
You’re not minding your business very well like I asked of you quite politely. Let’s go back to our rules.
1. We dont address each other.
2. We dont use each others name in a post. I apologized to you already. Now lets shut our communication down. Its awkward, I don’t like it.
Now back to michael prime Crabtree time oneniner latino heat. You know, the kid that doesnt know how to use the word YOUR. What a dummy!
23welcher I can always correct my spelling, you will never be able to become intelligent. Good luck pal!
@23welcher, don’t be upset with DS for calling your stupidity and lies out. “YOU ARE” clueless and thats all there is to it!
23J,
“YOUR life couldn’t questioned because you spend too much time on this blog”.
Your grammar is equally as bad…Just saying .
JDT,
Just needed to get involved huh? In the following post I asked Michael prime Cratree prime oneniner latino heat to find my mistakes. It was a homework assignment for him. This doesn’t concern you. Please allow us to settle this. He knows he’s taking a beatdown. He needs it. He’s the self proclaimed blog bully. He’s actually quite immature and childish. However, I am working on that right now with him. Thanks anyway though. Much respect.
23welcher everyone is tired of your dance, keep talking, this is gettin funnier and funnier the more you keep babbling!
I thought you were going out to dinner with your family, was that another lie of yours? Or was that dinner thru the drive thru? Hahahaha!!!!!
haha yea, stats is only good when the variables are limited. In a football game, there are too many variables that we have to account for. I agree, for most teams, taking a sack for a QB is a nono, but we are the 9ers! /flex
Grant, as a columnist, you are a HORRIBLE analyst. Alex Smith was stating, that if your objective is to NOT take a sack, then a lot of the scrambling plays that lead to big gains don’t have a chance to materialize, because you’re getting rid of the ball to avoid the sack. Pretty easy to understand. While a sack does reduce an offenses chances to score on a drive, what percentage do you have if you turn the ball over? This is just another way for you to pick at Alex Smith. Alex is playing great football right now, and I know it just EATS YOU UP! Choke on it.
Another Grant Cohn analysis that nitpicks and undertones a very positiive 49ers season. Finding anything negetive in what to this point has been so positive. Par for the course, Mr. Cohn? Keep picking as the fans keep enjoying. Conh to the bone.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3902527548_83acd1c9f6.jpg
My point exactly. I know where you’re going, and you missed. Badly.
I think I framed you correctly Dan.
If you want homer articles perhaps you should stick to fan forums?
@ ms… No, you have framed nothing. The game of football is very broad in perspective, particularly the QB position. To generalize decision-making, particularily based on a quote to the media (which is typically 99% BS) is fallacy. There are so many instances where a sack may very well be a good decision. It is relative, which is exactly what Smith is saying. Leave it to all the hens in the house to cackle about it as if they know what is really being decided on the field on any particular play. This is base level grade school analysis at best.
Smith has consistently been one of the most sacked quarterbacks in the league. Trying to frame that as a good thing makes you look a tad silly. As the above picture demonstrated.
Getting sacked is a bad thing. It is worse than a penalty because it costs the offense yards and a down. Most advanced football metrics people place the blame for sacks squarely on the quarterback. You can whimper and moan but a lot of very smart people disagree with you.
>>Getting sacked is a bad thing. It is worse than a penalty because it costs the offense yards and a down.
Yes, it’s oh so bad it prevented us from having the best record in the leaque over these two seasons. Oh wait, no it didn’t.
Careful walking through the forest ms, you might bump into the trees.
Oh brother…. Many times have ‘a lot of very smart people’ disagreed with me. That’s a-ok. You are not one of them. Next time you bump into Harbaugh or Smith bust out your picture and a copy of this wonderfully intricate Grant Cohn analysis and see who looks silly.
Oh brother…. Many times have ‘a lot of very smart people’ disagreed with me. That’s a-ok. You are not one of them. Next time you bump into Harbaugh or Smith bust out your picture and a copy of this wonderfully intricate analysis and see who looks silly.
Oh brother…. Many times have ‘a lot of very smart people’ disagreed with me. That’s a-ok. Next time you bump into Harbaugh or Smith bust out your picture and a copy of this wonderfully intricate analysis and see who looks silly.
Somebody likes to hit the “Post Comment” button just a tad more than once.
:- )
@ms… Show me down and distsnce on those decisions. Show me the score. Show me time of posession at each point in the game when the sack was made. Show me field position. Explain the trends of the game at the time as well. You think that’s got anything to do with it? Or maybe Alex Smith and Jim Harbaugh are too dumb to think of that.
Dan
I don’t think any sack last year caused us to lose.
Our TO’s in Baltimore and the title game did. I think we fumbled against AZ. I don’t remember if we had a TO against Dallas. But I do remember M. Williams not falling on one to end the game in our victory.
TO’s win/lose games. Not 3rd downs/sacks. Those end series prety well. As do TO’s. But TO’s lose games.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Don’t have time to read all the replies but your contention is that instead of taking a sack, just chuck the ball as far down the field as possible and let the other team have a chance at an interception. Just like a punt you say. But if it’s 1st or 2nd down you still have a chance of getting a 1st down and keeping the drive alive.
I guess Aaron Rodgers is a train wreck since he was sacked 35+ times in 2011
Grant did you ever notice all the good beat writers don’t get into internet flame wars with their posters. This page is like a middle school facebook account. Is that the press democrats model for driving traffic?
This is inferring conclusions based upon someone else’s assumptions – without knowing the set of assumptions.
The Cohn article appears to assume that all sacks are created equal. It does not allow for Smith’s good judgement. AS says that taking a sack is not always a bad thing. I am sure if Alex had a better choice, he would prefer to not be sacked.
The extrapolation from his statement to your premise is ludicrous at best.
+ 1
Nothing worse than a fan of 1 player on a team. What’s up onelame?
Md,
One miner never left. One Niner is prime time. prime time is also Michael Crabtree and Latino heat. His name is prime Michael Latino onenimer heat time Crabtree. He’s the Grant Cohn blogs original double poster. However, I’ve since learned he’s a quad poster that is obsessed with Alex Smith and wants to marry Smith. He doesn’t care that Smith is Already married. He is the ultimate Smither. Pathetic soul indeed.
+2
It’s apparent to me from the answers given by Smith and the Coaches that Smith has been instructed to pull it down and protect the ball rather than try to throw it away and risk a TO. However, this is strictly in the pocket where you really can’t throw it away without risk of a TO or intentional grounding anyway. Smith doesn’t take sacks when he gets outside the pocket; in fact many have berated him for the roll right throw away for years.
When the pocket collapses a QB can either tuck it and take a sack or try to buy enough time to throw it away. The risk/reward to save the sack yardage isn’t worth it to this Coaching staff. They’d rather punt and try again later and so far it’s working just fine.
The issue must be that he doesn’t have time to throw it away – I would think. Throwing it away would be the best option but I’ll take a sack over a desperation play any day.
Adam – How ya been man? Are you having a Niner party tomorrow?
Every Sunday! A nice smooth brown beer and a bowl of popcorn. :p
You?
This article is so full of stupid, I do not even know where to start.
No, interception on 1 and 10 is not “just like a punt”. Teams recover from a sack on 1st and 2nd down all the time.
Andy Lee punt is a much more reliable way to pin then deep. Much, much more reliable.
In short, I am glad that the team is run by people like Roman and Smith who know what they are doing.
I stopped reading Grants column because he has an agenda against Alex Smith. Today I decided to give this blog one more try and I see that things haven’t changed. Good luck fellas.
Lets get this day started! I hope the 49ers didn’t invite FPS to this party. The last thing I want to hear is that stupid Vikings horn all damn morning. LETS GO NINERS!!!!! Wheeeeeeww!
No way. Today is Gotterdammerung for these Vikings.
Freddie p is in the building right now. Smith looks like garbage. Gotta get it together