There are 380 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Fangio vs. Manusky

Who would you rather have and why?

I like Manusky because he got the most he could out of his personnel. Never had a great pass rusher yet still found a way to manufacture a decent amount of sacks and was great at confusing qb's that not many can confuse. I wish Harbaugh gave him a shot but we'll see, maybe Fangio will do better now than in his previous stops, especially if we get a big time pass rusher.
personally, I liked Manusky, i dont know if it was him or Sing that ordered a vanilla defense.

We had Nate, Shawntae, etc.... playing 10 yrds off the man, which hurt us tremendously.

But I am glad to have Fangio, cause he know Harbaugh and we likely will have continuity with our OC, DC and ST coordinator for a few yrs if not longer.
Hard to say how much latitude Manusky had in defensive schemes, his bosses were both defensive guys. I would like to seen the corners play more press man coverage, instead of the soft, off man coverages they played most of the time. He is gone now so now I am anxious to see what kind of havoc a Fangio defense can create.
I liked Manusky but it's difficult to answer this question without seeing Fangio's defense yet.

I hated that Manusky rarely blitzed tho so im happy thats no longer here.
Originally posted by Sjceruti:
I liked Manusky but it's difficult to answer this question without seeing Fangio's defense yet.

I hated that Manusky rarely blitzed tho so im happy thats no longer here.

I agree, Also, the last few years we have gotten like 3-4 sacks a game vs the rams and seahawks and other subpar teams, which inflate our sack total to make it look better. If that makes sense.....
Originally posted by Sjceruti:
I liked Manusky but it's difficult to answer this question without seeing Fangio's defense yet.

I hated that Manusky rarely blitzed tho so im happy thats no longer here.

Yes but I probably wouldn't have blitzed much either if I were him. Most of the time our OLB's were better in coverage/setting the edge in the run game type roles than in pinning their ears back and gettin after the qb. If we had a Cameron Wake or DeMarcus Ware or (draft a Von Miller), then I'm sure we would have been rushing those guys, but if a Manny Lawson would just be likely swallowed up by a left tackle, he's essentially been made null and void and it'd be like 11 on 10, but if he covered a tight end or back, his presence would be more effectively felt, especially because he's very good in coverage. I do think he can still wind up being a productive pass rusher though. He has brought heat from the inside though, with Willis and Spikes combining for 14 sacks in the last 2 years, which I'm sure is the highest of any inside linebacker tandem in that span.
billy davis
Originally posted by Sjceruti:
I liked Manusky but it's difficult to answer this question without seeing Fangio's defense yet.

I hated that Manusky rarely blitzed tho so im happy thats no longer here.

Manusk would zone blitz.
Thats because we don't have a edge rusher, and a qb to get us the lead!
Originally posted by TonyStarks:
Originally posted by Sjceruti:
I liked Manusky but it's difficult to answer this question without seeing Fangio's defense yet.

I hated that Manusky rarely blitzed tho so im happy thats no longer here.

Manusk would zone blitz.

Eh, not that much. Part of what encompasses the zone blitz is a d-lineman dropping into coverage. Smith, Franklin, and Sopoaga did not drop into coverage too much.
I thought the most brilliant game planning Manusky ever came up with was against Indianapolis. We kept our players standing up right, without tipping our formations to Manning until the last second. We confused the hell out of him, and it was extremely effective. That was most confused I've ever seen Peyton Manning. It's too bad we didn't win that game. But the defense gave us a good opportunity to win.

That said, we always seemed to be playing our DB's too far off receivers. Our D always gave up short completions that sometimes went for long gains. Our run defense was excellent, but we couldn't stop the pass if the game depended on it. And sometimes the offense would score the go-ahead or tie TD only to have the defense give up a score on the next posession. I don't think Manusky was the biggest problem on defense, but maybe we can do better with Fangio at the helm. Who knows, we'll find out.
[ Edited by Psinex on Mar 6, 2011 at 1:33 AM ]
Originally posted by Psinex:
I thought the most brilliant game planning Manusky ever came up with was against Indianapolis. We kept our players standing up right, without tipping our formations to Manning until the last second. We confused the hell out of him, and it was extremely effective. That was most confused I've ever seen Peyton Manning. It's too bad we didn't win that game. But the defense gave us a good opportunity to win.

That said, we always seemed to be playing our DB's too far off receivers. Our D always gave up short completions that sometimes went for long gains. Our run defense was excellent, but we couldn't stop the pass if the game depended on it. And sometimes the offense would score the go-ahead or tie TD only to have the defense give up a score on the next posession. I don't think Manusky was the biggest problem on defense, but maybe we can do better with Fangio at the helm. Who knows, we'll find out.

We have had that issue for several years now.
Did you know that Manusky has the word "anus" in it.
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Did you know that Manusky has the word "anus" in it.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Did you know that Manusky has the word "anus" in it.

Or, you could pronounce it

MANNNNN

U

Sky

...