Is Manny Lawson Onboard with the 49ers New Culture?

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by bret:
NC, I've read your analysis with interest, and have found myself mostly agreeing. But at the very end of your last post you said you thought he belonged in a 4-3. My question to you is: as what? A 250 4-3 end? As a weak-side linebacker?

Hey! I appreciate the reads...

No, as an OLB in the 4-3, ala...ironically, Julian Peterson. Remember, Julian Peterson was terrible in our 3-4 as a SAM, in fact, so ineffective at PR and at the POA, we started using him almost exclusively as a coverage LB (e.g. a safety). But once he went to Seattle, had FOUR (not three) active d-linemen in front of him who could occupy the o-line and free him up to PR and make plays, he excelled again. That's why I say it's not fair how Manusky uses Manny though a 3-4 is not his skill-set so Manusky is hamstrung. To put it lightly, Willis plays the role now that Peterson played in Seattle (free to make plays). With an extra big body in front of him and the freedom to make plays, I think Manny would excel in the 4-3 and maybe even get a few sacks here and there. But he'd be able to play to his strengths and that's play sideline to sideline, freed up, play recognition and he should be even more free to make plays behind the LOS b/c he won't be as tied up like he is in the 3-4 (where he has to engage and set the edge for Willis/Spikes).

How can anyone take you seriously when you say he (Julien Peterson) was terrible at anything? He was a 2 time Pro Bowler in San Francisco and, in case you forgot, they were running a 43 Defense while he was here. They didn't start the switch to the 34 until 2005, Peterson's last year, a year he was just coming back from an ACL tear that ended his 2004 season.

Me thinks you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Do your research my friend! We were running a 3-4 during his franchise tag year before he left for Seattle (the year we had, what, one LB locked up that year at one point) and had o scramble to sign Jeff, Derek Smith & Brandon Moore. And he was terribly ineffective as a SAM. It was actually embarrassing to watch. Granted, he may have been dogging it but about the only play he made that year was a 50 knock down pass where he sprinted (he was healthy) down field, seriously, almost 50 yards to defend a pass! But in terms of pass rush, they started using Brandon Moore in the SAM position then. Watching Peterson crash into the blocker every time and be unable to disengage was sad - and his pass rush? f*getaboutit! He was much better suited for the 4-3 and his career proved it.

Originally posted by darkknight49:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by bret:
NC, I've read your analysis with interest, and have found myself mostly agreeing. But at the very end of your last post you said you thought he belonged in a 4-3. My question to you is: as what? A 250 4-3 end? As a weak-side linebacker?

Hey! I appreciate the reads...

No, as an OLB in the 4-3, ala...ironically, Julian Peterson. Remember, Julian Peterson was terrible in our 3-4 as a SAM, in fact, so ineffective at PR and at the POA, we started using him almost exclusively as a coverage LB (e.g. a safety). But once he went to Seattle, had FOUR (not three) active d-linemen in front of him who could occupy the o-line and free him up to PR and make plays, he excelled again. That's why I say it's not fair how Manusky uses Manny though a 3-4 is not his skill-set so Manusky is hamstrung. To put it lightly, Willis plays the role now that Peterson played in Seattle (free to make plays). With an extra big body in front of him and the freedom to make plays, I think Manny would excel in the 4-3 and maybe even get a few sacks here and there. But he'd be able to play to his strengths and that's play sideline to sideline, freed up, play recognition and he should be even more free to make plays behind the LOS b/c he won't be as tied up like he is in the 3-4 (where he has to engage and set the edge for Willis/Spikes).

How can anyone take you seriously when you say he (Julien Peterson) was terrible at anything? He was a 2 time Pro Bowler in San Francisco and, in case you forgot, they were running a 43 Defense while he was here. They didn't start the switch to the 34 until 2005, Peterson's last year, a year he was just coming back from an ACL tear that ended his 2004 season.

Me thinks you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

the only thing Peterson was terrible at was staying healthy.

WTF are you talking about? He played in 95% of the the 49ers games from the day he was drafted until the ACL tear. Going 37 straight when he got hurt, then 15 of the next 16 after coming back from the injury before signing with Seattle.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by bret:
NC, I've read your analysis with interest, and have found myself mostly agreeing. But at the very end of your last post you said you thought he belonged in a 4-3. My question to you is: as what? A 250 4-3 end? As a weak-side linebacker?

Hey! I appreciate the reads...

No, as an OLB in the 4-3, ala...ironically, Julian Peterson. Remember, Julian Peterson was terrible in our 3-4 as a SAM, in fact, so ineffective at PR and at the POA, we started using him almost exclusively as a coverage LB (e.g. a safety). But once he went to Seattle, had FOUR (not three) active d-linemen in front of him who could occupy the o-line and free him up to PR and make plays, he excelled again. That's why I say it's not fair how Manusky uses Manny though a 3-4 is not his skill-set so Manusky is hamstrung. To put it lightly, Willis plays the role now that Peterson played in Seattle (free to make plays). With an extra big body in front of him and the freedom to make plays, I think Manny would excel in the 4-3 and maybe even get a few sacks here and there. But he'd be able to play to his strengths and that's play sideline to sideline, freed up, play recognition and he should be even more free to make plays behind the LOS b/c he won't be as tied up like he is in the 3-4 (where he has to engage and set the edge for Willis/Spikes).

How can anyone take you seriously when you say he (Julien Peterson) was terrible at anything? He was a 2 time Pro Bowler in San Francisco and, in case you forgot, they were running a 43 Defense while he was here. They didn't start the switch to the 34 until 2005, Peterson's last year, a year he was just coming back from an ACL tear that ended his 2004 season.

Me thinks you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Do your research my friend! We were running a 3-4 during his franchise tag year before he left for Seattle (the year we had, what, one LB locked up that year at one point) and had o scramble to sign Jeff, Derek Smith & Brandon Moore. And he was terribly ineffective as a SAM. It was actually embarrassing to watch. Granted, he may have been dogging it but about the only play he made that year was a 50 knock down pass where he sprinted (he was healthy) down field, seriously, almost 50 yards to defend a pass! But in terms of pass rush, they started using Brandon Moore in the SAM position then. Watching Peterson crash into the blocker every time and be unable to disengage was sad - and his pass rush? f*getaboutit! He was much better suited for the 4-3 and his career proved it.

Do what research? That is what I said. He only played in the 34 his last year here, the year the team was switching to the 34 and he was coming off the a major ACL tear/surgery.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by bret:
NC, I've read your analysis with interest, and have found myself mostly agreeing. But at the very end of your last post you said you thought he belonged in a 4-3. My question to you is: as what? A 250 4-3 end? As a weak-side linebacker?

Hey! I appreciate the reads...

No, as an OLB in the 4-3, ala...ironically, Julian Peterson. Remember, Julian Peterson was terrible in our 3-4 as a SAM, in fact, so ineffective at PR and at the POA, we started using him almost exclusively as a coverage LB (e.g. a safety). But once he went to Seattle, had FOUR (not three) active d-linemen in front of him who could occupy the o-line and free him up to PR and make plays, he excelled again. That's why I say it's not fair how Manusky uses Manny though a 3-4 is not his skill-set so Manusky is hamstrung. To put it lightly, Willis plays the role now that Peterson played in Seattle (free to make plays). With an extra big body in front of him and the freedom to make plays, I think Manny would excel in the 4-3 and maybe even get a few sacks here and there. But he'd be able to play to his strengths and that's play sideline to sideline, freed up, play recognition and he should be even more free to make plays behind the LOS b/c he won't be as tied up like he is in the 3-4 (where he has to engage and set the edge for Willis/Spikes).

How can anyone take you seriously when you say he (Julien Peterson) was terrible at anything? He was a 2 time Pro Bowler in San Francisco and, in case you forgot, they were running a 43 Defense while he was here. They didn't start the switch to the 34 until 2005, Peterson's last year, a year he was just coming back from an ACL tear that ended his 2004 season.

Me thinks you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Do your research my friend! We were running a 3-4 during his franchise tag year before he left for Seattle (the year we had, what, one LB locked up that year at one point) and had o scramble to sign Jeff, Derek Smith & Brandon Moore. And he was terribly ineffective as a SAM. It was actually embarrassing to watch. Granted, he may have been dogging it but about the only play he made that year was a 50 knock down pass where he sprinted (he was healthy) down field, seriously, almost 50 yards to defend a pass! But in terms of pass rush, they started using Brandon Moore in the SAM position then. Watching Peterson crash into the blocker every time and be unable to disengage was sad - and his pass rush? f*getaboutit! He was much better suited for the 4-3 and his career proved it.

Do what research? That is what I said. He only played in the 34 his last year here, the year the team was switching to the 34 and he was coming off the a major ACL tear/surgery.

Peterson may have been dogging it a bit but let's face it, he was a terrible SAM in the 3-4 and there many fans who didn't bat an eye when he left for more money and for a defense that fit him better.

He was decent in his last year with us (but easily blocked out and not worth the franchise $ we paid him that year) putting up 82 tackles and a measly 3 sacks. That one of the five defended passes was one for the highlight reels though! Then he went to Seattle and put up 10 sacks and then 9.5 where he was the featured OLB (like Willis is for us). I was happy for him that he found a better fit (just not with Seattle). Manny is referred to as the "poor man's Peterson" sometimes around here...very athletic but needs to be freed up to make plays. Peterson did have a better PR though but again, relied mostly on speed and quickness and certainly, can't bull-rush to save his life. The tag on Peterson was always, run right at him - and we did...quite effectively too!

Originally posted by Gavintech:


Do what research? That is what I said. He only played in the 34 his last year here, the year the team was switching to the 34 and he was coming off the a major ACL tear/surgery.

It wasn't an ACL tear, it was his Achilles' Tendon (the tendon that runs up the back of your ankle).

Much different then an ACL tear, and has a different healing time. It also doesn't heal back to its original strength, so it can be a reoccuring injury.