Originally posted by Pariah
I mentioned in one of my first posts that the Raiders were a rare exception. If you are intimately familiar with the patriots, you might know something I don't, but from what I saw, effective or no, they tried to establish Antwain Smith early in games.
The Niners ran a version of the west coast offense last year because they ran a number of screens, and dropped the ball off short to WRs which they then relied on to break the initial contact.
In fact, as long as we're being picky, how do you defend your assertment that Mooch went to the run because his WRs weren't any good?
I'm no more intimately familiar with the Pats than any other football fan w/o Sunday Ticket, but it was obvious since their first Monday night game against the Steelers that they weren't running much that season. They dropped back 605 times last season, and rushed 395 times. On first downs, they passed 184 times, and rushed 99 times. By comparison, in 2001, they passed and rushed almost equally both overall and on first downs.
As for the Neeners not running the West Coast, I can say that in 2002 they had 489 rushing attempts and 354 completed passes. Garrison Hearst and Kevan Barlow combined for 62 receptions. That's fewer than either starting WR, so much for all those screens. The tight end, again probably the third primary reciever in a true West Coast scheme (see previous post), only got 36 balls. The WRs combined for over 200 catches, with TO accounting for half of them.
I thought I said (and meant) that the Neeners switched to a power running game (remember at the beginning of the season when officals in SF were saying that both Barlow and Hearst could be 1000 yard rushers?). The 49ers O used a power running game to bring safties in to open up passing lanes for TO, their only real recieving threat on the outside, to get big gains. Stokes and Streets are stiffs, and that's why no one really cared which one started. TO is good. Stokes and Streets are just barely all right.
I guess your article is all right, but it doesn't really say anything, except to say that if Erickson's going to be calling his own plays, that means the end of the West Coast offense, and everyone knows that Walsh really runs the show out there. I don't even know what the "Press Democrat" is, but I don't believe it's the paper of record in the Bay Area. Who believes the mullings of sports columnists, anyway?
