Is Manny Lawson Onboard with the 49ers New Culture?

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Why do you want to replace Lawson, again?

That one is easy. Because he was a 1st round draft pick.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Why do you want to replace Lawson, again?

That one is easy. Because he was a 1st round draft pick.

Wait.... Are you saying that's why he wants to or why you want to?

Can't tell if you're agreeing with him or not.

Are you saying first round picks who aren't "busts" but do disappoint should be replaced? Are you saying that's what he's saying?

Damnit, man! I need clarity! I demand satisfaction!

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Why do you want to replace Lawson, again?

That one is easy. Because he was a 1st round draft pick.

Wait.... Are you saying that's why he wants to or why you want to?

Can't tell if you're agreeing with him or not.

Are you saying first round picks who aren't "busts" but do disappoint should be replaced? Are you saying that's what he's saying?

Damnit, man! I need clarity! I demand satisfaction!

Not me. I just can't figure out why so many WZ'ers have a hard-on for getting rid of this guy. He's a very valuable asset to our team. If he was a 2nd or 3rd round pick without the expectations of being a 10-sack a year guy I don't think people would be so up in arms about replacing him.

Originally posted by Gavintech:


Not me. I just can't figure out why so many WZ'ers have a hard-on for getting rid of this guy. He's a very valuable asset to our team. If he was a 2nd or 3rd round pick without the expectations of being a 10-sack a year guy I don't think people would be so up in arms about replacing him.

Yay! I like you!

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Why do you want to replace Lawson, again?

That one is easy. Because he was a 1st round draft pick.

Wait.... Are you saying that's why he wants to or why you want to?

Can't tell if you're agreeing with him or not.

Are you saying first round picks who aren't "busts" but do disappoint should be replaced? Are you saying that's what he's saying?

Damnit, man! I need clarity! I demand satisfaction!

Not me. I just can't figure out why so many WZ'ers have a hard-on for getting rid of this guy. He's a very valuable asset to our team. If he was a 2nd or 3rd round pick without the expectations of being a 10-sack a year guy I don't think people would be so up in arms about replacing him.

I think WZ'ers are up in arms because we are sick of having losing seasons. I dont believe Manny is the direct cause of that and I think we have more pressing needs but if I could speak to why people are picking on Manny it would be because 7 years of losing should bring damn near everyone under fire. I aint mad at the zoners.

Originally posted by hubbyt:
Elaborate on what is considered a stop? Are you talking about tackles in general? Tackles for loss? Tackles on plays that resulted in less than a certain # of yards (for example less than 2 yards). I'm curious.

For the record Manny was 5th on the team in overall tackles so I'm just wondering what being 2nd in stops actually means?

Thanks

PFF defines a Stop as "The number of solo defensive tackles made which constitute an offensive failure (including sacks)."

This is a site that reviews each individual play by each individual player.

Also, to add:

Haralson had 6 Sacks, 10 QB hits, 27 QB Pressures, 1 Batted Pass, 32 Solo Tackles, 4 Assists & 5 Missed Tackles
Lawson had 7 Sacks, 10 QB hits, 19 QB Pressures, 0 Batted Pass, 43 Solo Tackles, 5 Assists & 5 Missed Tackles

So, naturally, with 130 extra plays, Haralson had 8 more QB Pressures then Lawson but Lawson had 11 more Solo Tackles playing on the strong side. Both were insignificant in coverage and both missed 5 tackles.

So, again, is Lawson THAT critical on 1st and 2nd downs to the point that we need him in there and bring in Brooks on 3rd downs and telegraph our defense or should we be looking to upgrade and develop a more well-rounded and complete 3-4 OLB and esp. one who has the natural ability to pass rush (which is the #1 responsibility of any OLB in the 3-4 and that included both Lawson and Haralson last year despite what they did or didn't excel at)?

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Not me. I just can't figure out why so many WZ'ers have a hard-on for getting rid of this guy. He's a very valuable asset to our team. If he was a 2nd or 3rd round pick without the expectations of being a 10-sack a year guy I don't think people would be so up in arms about replacing him.

The better question is why wouldn't you want an upgrade and are satisfied with average play and someone who clearly does not fit the 3-4 defensive scheme. I think most people could care less what round he was drafted in. What fans care about is production on the field "as a starter." And if you look at actual production on the field and Manny's career in general, he is average, as is Haralson and BOTH should be looked at for upgrades. That is why the original poster noted the article re: Manny's ego, no-show, I noted the tantrums I saw with him on the sidelines when he was removed for Brooks, his motivation as it correlated to his "production" and why the team may have signed Brooks for two years, Singletary will be looking to work him more, we're looking at LeBoy and may seriously consider Graham if available. I know our standards have dropped significantly since the "golden era" but we are no rebuilding and SHOULD be looking to upgrade starters or at bare minimum, get players who can truly challange them to "earn and keep" their jobs. Many players on this team have never had to be fully challenged b/c of the poor talent pool we had to work with. That is NOT the case anymore and frankly, "it's about damn time!"

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by hubbyt:
Elaborate on what is considered a stop? Are you talking about tackles in general? Tackles for loss? Tackles on plays that resulted in less than a certain # of yards (for example less than 2 yards). I'm curious.

For the record Manny was 5th on the team in overall tackles so I'm just wondering what being 2nd in stops actually means?

Thanks

PFF defines a Stop as "The number of solo defensive tackles made which constitute an offensive failure (including sacks)."

This is a site that reviews each individual play by each individual player.

Also, to add:

Haralson had 6 Sacks, 10 QB hits, 27 QB Pressures, 1 Batted Pass, 32 Solo Tackles, 4 Assists & 5 Missed Tackles
Lawson had 7 Sacks, 10 QB hits, 19 QB Pressures, 0 Batted Pass, 43 Solo Tackles, 5 Assists & 5 Missed Tackles

So, naturally, with 130 extra plays, Haralson had 8 more QB Pressures then Lawson but Lawson had 11 more Solo Tackles playing on the strong side. Both were insignificant in coverage and both missed 5 tackles.

So, again, is Lawson THAT critical on 1st and 2nd downs to the point that we need him in there and bring in Brooks on 3rd downs and telegraph our defense or should we be looking to upgrade and develop a more well-rounded and complete 3-4 OLB and esp. one who has the natural ability to pass rush (which is the #1 responsibility of any OLB in the 3-4 and that included both Lawson and Haralson last year despite what they did or didn't excel at)?

Sweet! Thanks for the info I just didnt know the technical definition of a 'Stop'. I'm all for upgrading FYI .. I'm not in the Lawson is amazing or Lawson is great in coverage camp. I consider him an average player at this stage. Telegraphing anything at the NFL level is not a good thing on offense or defense.

Originally posted by hubbyt:
Sweet! Thanks for the info I just didnt know the technical definition of a 'Stop'. I'm all for upgrading FYI .. I'm not in the Lawson is amazing or Lawson is great in coverage camp. I consider him an average player at this stage. Telegraphing anything at the NFL level is not a good thing on offense or defense.

Sure n/p! Happy to help and appreciate your opinion. Nobody is "hating" on Manny here.

Originally posted by NCommand:


So, again, is Lawson THAT critical on 1st and 2nd downs to the point that we need him in there and bring in Brooks on 3rd downs and telegraph our defense

I understand your point about telegraphing and it is a valid one, but I felt I should point out that it didn't stop the two from putting up 13 combined sacks. Would we get better production from a three down player at that position?

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by NCommand:


So, again, is Lawson THAT critical on 1st and 2nd downs to the point that we need him in there and bring in Brooks on 3rd downs and telegraph our defense

I understand your point about telegraphing and it is a valid one, but I felt I should point out that it didn't stop the two from putting up 13 combined sacks. Would we get better production from a three down player at that position?

It's a fair question to ask! When your leader in sacks is only 6.5 (or 7 per PFF) and that is coming from the SAM position, a position that is freed up to attack, I can see why many here feel we need an upgrade. Adding in Haralson's 6 sacks, while together looks decent, we need to look at other successful 3-4 OLB's in the 3-4 to see where we measure up. I see the two combined for 13 sacks as the equivalent of Willis getting 100 tackles. The defense is designed to free him up to do one job exceptionally well and getting 100 tackles for him, would be below-to-average at best.

Elvis Dumervil 17
Lamarr Woodley 14
DeMarcus Ware 12
James Harrison 10
Clay Matthews 10
Tamba Hali 9
Joey Porter 9
Jason Taylor 8

Manny & Haralson were in the company of TBC, Haggans, Wimbley, Phillips & Spencer

Is this bad company? Not at all...but we were ranked 15th in total defense. What do you see in those 3-4 or Hybrid defenses below that lead the league in total defense?

Top defenses:
New York Jets (Hybrid - unbelievable scheme)
Green Bay Packers
Baltimore Ravens (Hybrid)
Pittsburgh Steelers (24 sacks between the WILL & SAM)
Minnesota Vikings (4-3 but Jared Allen)
Denver Broncos
Dallas Cowboys
New England Patriots
Philadelphia Eagles (4-3 Trent Cole)
Houston (4-3 Mario Williams)

There clearly is a correlation between the pass rush and top defenses in the league whether that be from the 3-4 (OLB's) or 4-3 (DE's). These are SPECIALIZED positions and these players need to do their jobs. Period.

So to answer your question, yes, you CAN get much more production and less predictability with one or two every down SAM or WILL's.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by NCommand:


So, again, is Lawson THAT critical on 1st and 2nd downs to the point that we need him in there and bring in Brooks on 3rd downs and telegraph our defense

I understand your point about telegraphing and it is a valid one, but I felt I should point out that it didn't stop the two from putting up 13 combined sacks. Would we get better production from a three down player at that position?

Or would Manny get better production as a three down player?

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by NCommand:


So, again, is Lawson THAT critical on 1st and 2nd downs to the point that we need him in there and bring in Brooks on 3rd downs and telegraph our defense

I understand your point about telegraphing and it is a valid one, but I felt I should point out that it didn't stop the two from putting up 13 combined sacks. Would we get better production from a three down player at that position?

Or would Manny get better production as a three down player?

Obviously not given he was pulled last year from the Hybrid defense and this year for the pass rush downs. He's not a "complete SAM" and that's pretty well stated throughout this post. Could he become a dominant and complete SAM? There is no evidence to suggest this esp. in the main responsibility of the SAM (and WILL) and that is the pass rush.

Some players do take much longer to develop into complete players esp. in complicated schemes such as a 3-4 so if you think that is the case, what evidence do you base your opinion on or are you just going on a hunch here?

In short, give me some evidence for why you think Manny will suddenly become a #1 dominant pass rusher (QB pressures, hits forced fumbles, etc.), #2 remains excellent against the run and sets the edge & #3 drops back in zones effectively and sniffs out screens and boxes in speedy RB's out of the backfield (TE's are NOT his assignments). Just curious, my friend.

Originally posted by NCommand:


So to answer your question, yes, you CAN get much more production and less predictability with one or two every down SAM or WILL's.

Sorry, should have clarified. I meant that Manny and Brooks combined for 13 (or 12.5) sacks. Basically, that's saying the production from our SAM position is in line with some of the more elite company in the league, even though we might be telegraphing our intentions by subbing Brooks on rushing downs.

The problem we've had is getting that dominant pass rusher on the blind side, which is the most essential part of pressuring the QB.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Or would Manny get better production as a three down player?

Obviously not given he was pulled last year from the Hybrid defense and this year for the pass rush downs. He's not a "complete SAM" and that's pretty well stated throughout this post. Could he become a dominant and complete SAM? There is no evidence to suggest this esp. in the main responsibility of the SAM (and WILL) and that is the pass rush.

Some players do take much longer to develop into complete players esp. in complicated schemes such as a 3-4 so if you think that is the case, what evidence do you base your opinion on or are you just going on a hunch here?

In short, give me some evidence for why you think Manny will suddenly become a #1 dominant pass rusher (QB pressures, hits forced fumbles, etc.), #2 remains excellent against the run and sets the edge & #3 drops back in zones effectively and sniffs out screens and boxes in speedy RB's out of the backfield (TE's are NOT his assignments). Just curious, my friend.

I'll give this a shot.

First, we'll have to agree to disagree that pass rush is the main responsibility of the SAM position. We've discussed that already and while we both agree it would be ideal to have both sides dominate rushing the QB, we disagree about the importance of the role relative to the WILL.

Secondly, it should be fairly obvious to everyone that Lawson improved his pass rushing ability last season. Not only did he lead the team in sacks, but he out produced the starting WILL (Haralson) with fewer snaps to work with. That begs the question, would he produce more given more snaps?

Lastly, you have already given statistical evidence to support Lawson's effectiveness against the run, as I previously pointed out. To turn your argument around on you, if the coaching staff felt the need to sub Brooks on rush downs, doesn't that also mean they felt the need to keep Lawson in on run downs? You could reasonably conclude that he is the superior player on first and second down, by your own logic. This also supports my opinion that the main responsibility of the SAM is not pass rush, it is a more even blend of rush, run, and coverage than that of the WILL... again, pointing to Haralson, who appears far less capable against the run and in coverage than Lawson.

So, could Lawson break out and handle the rush duties on the strong side? It remains to be seen, but his improvement is encouraging. What I am more curious about is whether Brooks would be more productive playing all three downs on the weak side. Currently, it seems that the coaching staff feels that Haralson is the better in his other LB assignments, but if Brooks can catch up, perhaps starting him would be an option.