That was some great stuff by Orlovsky!! And he was 100% right. The threat of Hurts made the LBs hesitant. The play of the OL....a good OL.....made some holes. And if you have those weapons in your arsenal, you're going to break some big gains.
Did the Eagles "run at will"? Semantics.
They ran it 42 times (without the 2 kneels by Minshew) for 150 yards. Sure they ran at will. Because they could dominate SF? No. They ran at will because SF had no way to come back. A QB who couldn't run the offense (Johnson) and the other couldn't throw the ball (literally) 8 minutes into the game.
They broke off some long runs (6 for 10 or more). 17, 13*, 10*, 12, 14 and 12. That's 6 carries for 78 yards. The other 36 attempts gained 72 yards (2.0). They had 8 negative yardage runs and 4 for zero yards gained. I don't consider that 'running at will' as in dominant. They ran 37 plays in the first half (18 runs; 19 passes). Once they were up 14 (21-7 to start the 3rd quarter), they ran the ball 24 times and threw 6 passes. Smart. And Hurts ran it 11 of those 24 times (for 40 yards).
Like I said, semantics. When I think of somebody "running at will", I think of a bunch of positive runs and big gainers. Not 23 attempts that gain 3 yards or less with half of them 0 to negative yard gains (12). They even had another -4 yard attempt that was nullified by penalty. And that's another thing, the niners D gave up 7 first downs on penalty (dirty MFers!!!), 3 of them (on 3rd (2) or 4th (1) down) extended Philly drives. Throw in 3 turnovers and is it any wonder they were dominated?
