There are 132 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Tully Banta-Cain

Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Originally posted by socal81:
This guy was terrible when he was on our squad. I was watching the games this weekend and I see this player come up with a pick and it's TBC. Then I hear the announcer say that he led the team in sacks this season. Sure enought I checked and he has 10 SACKS!!! Did we give up on him too early or was it that we didn't know how to use him?

I think the bolded. Although, I would have been curious to see how Manusky would have used him without Nolan.

I have been saying this for YEARS now. Manusky's scheme is the most vanilla 3-4 in the game. B/c of continuity in the system, we played solid this year but he does NOT have the exotic attacking schemes most DC's have in this league. TBC is a perfect example of how it may not matter who is playing the WILL or SAM, we just don't use them right. Even if Brooks takes over at the SAM, I don't know if he'll be much more successful then Haralson b/c the scheme is predictable and lacks unpredictability that most 3-4 defenses bring!

Our defense is so predictable that Peyton Manning struggled.
  • CalgaryNiner
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by zaro49er:
Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Originally posted by socal81:
This guy was terrible when he was on our squad. I was watching the games this weekend and I see this player come up with a pick and it's TBC. Then I hear the announcer say that he led the team in sacks this season. Sure enought I checked and he has 10 SACKS!!! Did we give up on him too early or was it that we didn't know how to use him?

I think the bolded. Although, I would have been curious to see how Manusky would have used him without Nolan.

I have been saying this for YEARS now. Manusky's scheme is the most vanilla 3-4 in the game. B/c of continuity in the system, we played solid this year but he does NOT have the exotic attacking schemes most DC's have in this league. TBC is a perfect example of how it may not matter who is playing the WILL or SAM, we just don't use them right. Even if Brooks takes over at the SAM, I don't know if he'll be much more successful then Haralson b/c the scheme is predictable and lacks unpredictability that most 3-4 defenses bring!

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with this. We were tied for 3rd in the league in sacks without any dominant pass rushers. If that doesn't scream generating pressure with scheme, I don't know what does.

Also, you don't confuse and frustrate Peyton Manning while running a "vanilla" scheme the way we frustrated him. I thought the gameplan Manusky came up with for that game was anything but vanilla.

If NE is so good at scheming and developing pass rushers that we are apparently "unable" to, why did we finish the season with 44 sacks to NE's 31?

Thank YOU! How can anyone criticize a Defense that forced, what, 29 turnovers??? Tying us for 3rd most in the league!!! 3rd Most SACKS in the league with 44!!! The #4 scoring defense, meaning they allowed the 4th fewest points....IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE!!! Yet Manusky runs a "vanilla" defense??? Wow, some people need to actually watch the games....Niners D was, at times, DOMINATING!!! Watch how they confused Peyton Manning....yes, Peyton manning!!!! Whatever Manusky is doing, however "VANILLA" it may or may not be, he did a great job, and don't be surprised if teams come calling his name in the near future....hopefully we can keep him around for a while!

NINERS4LIFE!!!

Yes, the three years he has been here and before that even in running a 3-4 esp. when compared to other successful 3-4 defenses in the league during that time.

TBC had 5.5 sacks in JUST 5 starts for the Pats before coming to SF. In SF he had only 4 total sacks. He goes back to NE and gets 10. That is not a motivation or individual issues d/t him being overweight. His heaviest weight was 280 (start of training camp). Merriman played at 272 pounds and other successful OLB's also play in this heavier weight category.

The "scheme" issue I'm talking about it about putting your WILL & SAM (especially) and MIKE & TED's in the best position to generate pressure. That is where Manusky fails no matter who's in these positions. Willis & Spikes have been underutilized in this aspect and Haralson & Lawson/Brooks are used as pseudo DE's in on each down and rarely switch sides, stand up, move behind the LOS looking for a gap to attack, drop back, etc.

OUR team sacks came mostly from the d-line and safety and CB blitzes. Only this year did Manusky start to use more of Willis & Spikes. The bottom line is, we have always relied on coverage sacks to generate pressure with individual efforts of the d-line and sneak-attacks with CB blitzes. The majority of our sacks SHOULD be coming from all four LB's, particularly the WILL & SAM positions where our team leader in sacks is ONLY 6.5 sacks. That, my friends, is scheme.

And against good teams, we were dominated in "team" sacks, often times not even sniffing the QB - we made some average QB's, WR's & TE's look like all-stars. But in other games we'd get 8 sacks. Overall, it looks good esp. when you factor in turnovers this year but it still does not dismiss the fact that Manusky needs to go back to his San Diego roots and learn a more exotic blitz scheme. I agree he'll still be one-dimensional with Lawson at the SAM (meaning the sacks will have to come from Brooks & Haralson) but that doesn't dismiss the fact that offenses are easily making the blocking calls at the LOS based on where we line up pre-snap.

Here is our defense:
Willis & Spikes - expect few blitzes a game and not much attention is needed to account for either
Lawson - always lines up as a psuedo LDE and can be blocked using an OT, TE or RB rather easily; just push him out wide in pass rush but beware against him in the run game
Haralson - there's film on him now and always lines up as a pseudo RDE. Can be blocked rather easy; no need to use an extra man.
Brooks - only comes in on obvious pass rushing downs (3rd downs or down and distance); hard to account for with little game film and he lines up at both SAM & WILL

Done.

There's just too much here to comment on but when you're still complaining about our defensive pressure when we finished 3rd in sacks because we didn't get them the "correct way", there's probably just no pleasing you.

A sack is a sack is a sack. Either we got it because we got good pressure or we got it because of good coverage. Both results are evidence of a good defensive scheme seeing as we have no single dominant pass rusher.

Who cares who gets the sack? In my opinion, a team that gets sacks from lots of different positions like us is harder to gameplan for not easier. When you know a team relies on a singe pass rusher it is much easier to plan your blocking schemes to account for him. You complain about predictability and then complain about our sacks coming from too many different positions. That's a complete contradiction!

This same defense that made average players look like all-stars (I'd actually like some of examples of this) made Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner look like rookies. This team still has a handful of issues, but defensive scheming and QB pressure is no longer one of them IMHO.
Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:
Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:
He sucked! I wouldn't replace any of our guys with him!

I would consider our 3 main OLB's superior to Tully Banta-Cain. He is extremely limited in coverage, and is less than average vs. the run.

That just confirms the OP's point even more. Just imagine what NE could do with Brooks.
Originally posted by WheresWaldo:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Originally posted by socal81:
This guy was terrible when he was on our squad. I was watching the games this weekend and I see this player come up with a pick and it's TBC. Then I hear the announcer say that he led the team in sacks this season. Sure enought I checked and he has 10 SACKS!!! Did we give up on him too early or was it that we didn't know how to use him?

I think the bolded. Although, I would have been curious to see how Manusky would have used him without Nolan.

I have been saying this for YEARS now. Manusky's scheme is the most vanilla 3-4 in the game. B/c of continuity in the system, we played solid this year but he does NOT have the exotic attacking schemes most DC's have in this league. TBC is a perfect example of how it may not matter who is playing the WILL or SAM, we just don't use them right. Even if Brooks takes over at the SAM, I don't know if he'll be much more successful then Haralson b/c the scheme is predictable and lacks unpredictability that most 3-4 defenses bring!

Our defense is so predictable that Peyton Manning struggled.

If you know anything about Peyton Manning and the Colts it's that they have ALWAYS struggled against 3-4 defenses. That said, Manusky put up a good game plan that game - just wasn't enough to win in the end and let's admit that the Colts came out rather flat that game too (perhaps overlooking us, playing down to competition, etc.). We did play good team defense but given this topic is about how individual players playing better elsewhere, yuor point has little barring to this topic.
Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
There's just too much here to comment on but when you're still complaining about our defensive pressure when we finished 3rd in sacks because we didn't get them the "correct way", there's probably just no pleasing you.

Not at all. The original post was on how TBC can play great for NE in a 3-4 but like crap for us and then go back to NE and play great again. Are you telling me we couldn't use a WILL who had 10 sacks on a defense that lost Seymour, started 5 rookies and even lost Wilfork for a good portion of the year? What exactly IS your point? B/c we had to generate sacks from every position except from the 4 LBers of where the sacks should come from, that's OK? The point here is that Manusky needs to watch game tape of more successful DC's and the exotic blitz schemes theye use and how best to take advantage of ALL four LB's in a 3-4 in addition to generating pressure with the d-line and CB's (which 3-4 defenses do also).

Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
A sack is a sack is a sack. Either we got it because we got good pressure or we got it because of good coverage. Both results are evidence of a good defensive scheme seeing as we have no single dominant pass rusher.

Is it? Then where we the sacks when we needed them the most (see MN, Indy, Seattle, GB, etc.)? The bottom line is you are looking at the defense and the sacks as a whole and are missing the fact that there are still areas that need grand improvements and in the 3-4, for us, it's with utilizing the 4 LBers properly in addition to what he's already doing with the rest of the 7 guys to get pressure. We've got some talent - right now, it's just too predictable.

I'm certainly not saying Manusky sucks by any means but I am saying, if he's ever going to be ranked higher then 12th, this is the next step he has to take. He has some good players now and they are familiar with his scheme...now is the time to expand upon it. That's all.

Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
Who cares who gets the sack? In my opinion, a team that gets sacks from lots of different positions like us is harder to gameplan for not easier. When you know a team relies on a singe pass rusher it is much easier to plan your blocking schemes to account for him. You complain about predictability and then complain about our sacks coming from too many different positions. That's a complete contradiction!

Again, the 4 LBers are the primary pass rushers of the 3-4 but this is in addition to good line stunts and pressure as well as your CB & safety blitz. The 3-4 is designed to disguise where the pass rush is coming from. Most of our sacks this year were d/t individual efforts, not scheme IMHO (e.g. Smith overpowering two linemen, good coverage, etc.). A better scheme can increase and built upon what we already established.

Originally posted by CalgaryNiner:
This same defense that made average players look like all-stars (I'd actually like some of examples of this) made Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner look like rookies. This team still has a handful of issues, but defensive scheming and QB pressure is no longer one of them IMHO.

You really don't think scheming and QB still isn't an issue on this team? Many times this year QB's had ALL day to throw the ball and some games we had zero sacks and very few QB pressures/hits. We have ALWAYS matched up well against AZ and like I mentioned before, Peyton has ALWAYS struggled with 3-4 defenses.

Again, a better scheme with an added dimension of focus on utilizing the 4 LBers properly will help with being more consistent from game to game and improve upon our defense this year and result in even more sacks, QB pressures/hits and consequently, turnovers.

You have to admit though that constantly using the OLB's as pseudo DE's up at the LOS and rarely using the inside LBer's in blitz and having the CB's play 15 yards off the LOS on 3rd and shorts and his "prevent" defense has indeed cost us some key games over the past three years. With Nolan gone, I do believe Manusky will continue to grow - I just hope it's in the scheme department.
Originally posted by 9erred:
Originally posted by socal81:
This guy was terrible when he was on our squad. I was watching the games this weekend and I see this player come up with a pick and it's TBC. Then I hear the announcer say that he led the team in sacks this season. Sure enought I checked and he has 10 SACKS!!! Did we give up on him too early or was it that we didn't know how to use him?

This scenario has played out time and time again,

Smiley is a pro bowler in Miami
Harvey Dahl played back up OT and starting Guard in Atlanta, got cut by the niners
Kyle Kosier, solid guard for Dallas
Tully Banta Cain got more sacks in NE than any niner this year.
The DT who is starting NT for the broncos now and looking good

Now when Jason Hill WR leaves, he will be a solid PR/KR number 3 WR for another team.

It was mostly Nolan and Company, but this team wastes talent, it is coaching.

Smiley played at a PB level when he was with us. I told people many a times, and would get told what a moron I was and how bad he sucked.......

Letting Smiley walk was a huge mistake. He was our best lineman at the time.

[ Edited by WINiner on Jan 13, 2010 at 16:12:52 ]
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Originally posted by socal81:
This guy was terrible when he was on our squad. I was watching the games this weekend and I see this player come up with a pick and it's TBC. Then I hear the announcer say that he led the team in sacks this season. Sure enought I checked and he has 10 SACKS!!! Did we give up on him too early or was it that we didn't know how to use him?

I think the bolded. Although, I would have been curious to see how Manusky would have used him without Nolan.

I have been saying this for YEARS now. Manusky's scheme is the most vanilla 3-4 in the game. B/c of continuity in the system, we played solid this year but he does NOT have the exotic attacking schemes most DC's have in this league. TBC is a perfect example of how it may not matter who is playing the WILL or SAM, we just don't use them right. Even if Brooks takes over at the SAM, I don't know if he'll be much more successful then Haralson b/c the scheme is predictable and lacks unpredictability that most 3-4 defenses bring!

Well phill simms said that the pats have the most vanilla 3-4 in the league so im going to go with him on this one...