There are 252 users in the forums
Originally posted by Spoonerism:Originally posted by dj43:Originally posted by NC49erfan82:
Draft Eric Berry and move Goldston to SS and I bet it will be a big improvment.
From reports I have read, Berry is not the cover guy the 49ers need. I agree with the concept however.
I've watched a lot of Eric Berry. He IS definitely a great cover guy. He could start at CB FS or SS if you wanted. The guy is Patrick Willis at safety.
Originally posted by GoFD74:Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Stats are misleading and only tell half the story...our sacks have come in bunches...like six against the Jags. What's missing is consistent pressure...something we haven't done in years. All that's really missing from our secondary is a real ballhawking FS...Goldson's not getting it done.
I think we've gotten pretty decent pressure most of the year...not that we're the 85 Bears or anything, but it's been decent and fairly consistent pressure, especially compared to previous years.
Given that this is Goldson's first full year as a starter, I'd personally wait to pass judgement on his abilities, but I get what you're saying. Still, I think he's got potential and shouldn't be tossed aside so quickly...some guys just need a year or two to develop.
Originally posted by GoFD74:Originally posted by GoFD74:Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Stats are misleading and only tell half the story...our sacks have come in bunches...like six against the Jags. What's missing is consistent pressure...something we haven't done in years. All that's really missing from our secondary is a real ballhawking FS...Goldson's not getting it done.
I think we've gotten pretty decent pressure most of the year...not that we're the 85 Bears or anything, but it's been decent and fairly consistent pressure, especially compared to previous years.
Given that this is Goldson's first full year as a starter, I'd personally wait to pass judgement on his abilities, but I get what you're saying. Still, I think he's got potential and shouldn't be tossed aside so quickly...some guys just need a year or two to develop.
See Corva, just a little patience. IMO, forcing fumbles is just as good as getting picks, and Goldson did both tonight.
Originally posted by bret:
Your stats are misleading. First of all we're 8th, NOT 6th (due to ties above us). 8th out of 13 is not that hot!
Moreover, this doesn't show how much of our pressure is from scheming and blitzing. When you have o do that. though you get pressure on the quarterback, you also put more pressure on your own backfield.
The most successful teams against the pass DO have quality backfields! But they also usually have someone who is able to put enough pressure without special scheming that opposing offenses have to plan for him. Do THAT and sack opportunities open up for everyone, and the secondary will usually have an extra player (the one who is no longer blitzing) causing tighter throwing lanes and more interceptions.
Originally posted by GoFD74:Originally posted by bret:
Your stats are misleading. First of all we're 8th, NOT 6th (due to ties above us). 8th out of 13 is not that hot!
Moreover, this doesn't show how much of our pressure is from scheming and blitzing. When you have o do that. though you get pressure on the quarterback, you also put more pressure on your own backfield.
The most successful teams against the pass DO have quality backfields! But they also usually have someone who is able to put enough pressure without special scheming that opposing offenses have to plan for him. Do THAT and sack opportunities open up for everyone, and the secondary will usually have an extra player (the one who is no longer blitzing) causing tighter throwing lanes and more interceptions.
I don't think it really matters a whole lot whether you "scheme up" sacks or just have quality edge rushers, so long as you bring pressure. Both can be very disruptive to an offense, and that's the key. But more importantly, the 3 sacks that Brooks got last night were not because of "scheming up." He just beat his mean each time...but, that's not always going to happen.
Sometimes the matchups don't play in your favor and you need to do something other than just having your edge rushers beat their man. With our current roster, we seem to be ok at doing both.
Originally posted by tohara3:Originally posted by GoFD74:Originally posted by bret:
Your stats are misleading. First of all we're 8th, NOT 6th (due to ties above us). 8th out of 13 is not that hot!
Moreover, this doesn't show how much of our pressure is from scheming and blitzing. When you have o do that. though you get pressure on the quarterback, you also put more pressure on your own backfield.
The most successful teams against the pass DO have quality backfields! But they also usually have someone who is able to put enough pressure without special scheming that opposing offenses have to plan for him. Do THAT and sack opportunities open up for everyone, and the secondary will usually have an extra player (the one who is no longer blitzing) causing tighter throwing lanes and more interceptions.
I don't think it really matters a whole lot whether you "scheme up" sacks or just have quality edge rushers, so long as you bring pressure. Both can be very disruptive to an offense, and that's the key. But more importantly, the 3 sacks that Brooks got last night were not because of "scheming up." He just beat his mean each time...but, that's not always going to happen.
Sometimes the matchups don't play in your favor and you need to do something other than just having your edge rushers beat their man. With our current roster, we seem to be ok at doing both.
If these guys keep applying pressure like this we may only need Briggs to develop or draft another rusher in the second or third round & help us go BPA & maybe get a game changer instead of drafting for need & passing on a playmaker. Sorry for the ramble.