Fangio vs. Manusky

I liked Greg Manusky and was sad to see him go. Our defense showed up constantly last season. They had numerous outstanding performances that were unable to be capitalized upon by the offense. We can only hope with the roster and coaching changes made that the defensive performance remains. I highly doubt that it could be better than last years, being the first year into a completely revamped team.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Fangio has mad experience over Manusky...and, he's a DC Harbaugh has total confidence in. I believe we'll see a more aggressive defense now...and some position upgrades (LDE, NT, OLB) to give VF more tools in his shed (so to speak). I think Fangio will be able to move the defense from an "almost" category to one that can better dictate what the opposing offense can do. BL, though is you can't really compare the two 'til Fangio has a few seasons in SF under his belt.

Jimmy Raye had "mad experience" too. Unfortunately, VFs track record is garbage. If we gave Manusky the same tools we plan to give VF, we would be dominate. People dont remember, but Manusky use to blitz a lot, until we started getting burned early in the season by the screen pass. In addition, our rushers couldn't get to the QB so usually when that happens a good QB will burn you. In all, Manusky wasn't great, but his record is much better than VFs. Three diffrent teams, three diffrent examples of a defense getting progressively worst. Coincidence, maybe?

He was the LB coach in NO when the team was quite good and the LBs were the heart of the defense. Had some very good records.

Then he followed Capers to Carolina where they started out 7-9 the first year and went 12-4 the next. Then two down years and they were fired.

Followed Capers to Houston in 2002 and did not have a winning record even though they had David Carr as their QB...imagine!

So, I don't think his record stinks but he did coach some very mediocre teams by hitching himself to Dom Capers.

Baltimore speaks for itself! Good D and he was assistant to HC for D & LBs 2006-9.

Not bad at Standford.

Not to interested in win loss record as winning and losing is a team effort. However, someone posted stats that showed his defenses getting statistcally worst every year he was there. Not impreessed by college d when you have an O that blows people out.

So, he gets no credit at Stanford because the O blows everyone out and he gets no credit in Houston because he had no offense. At no time was he in charge of the draft, FA, or any other aspect of management of the team, so you judge him on what was that again? Team getting worse? But you disregard NO and Carolina when the team did much better?

OK!

With all due respect, you used the phrase "no credit" not me. I said I "wasn't impressed", which is an accurate statement.

Obviously, how the offense peforms has an impact on the play/stats of the D. But to try and measure the quality of a DC based on a teams win/loss record is foolish.

The fact is, every defense that VF has taken over has gotten progressivly worst starting from the year he got there. This happened with three diffrent teams. Are there circumstances outside of VFs control that could have influenced that, absolutly! But as the DC he still has to bare the majority of the blame. If nothing else, the stats scream mediocare. This would not happend to a good/great DC. So spin it however you would like, but he has some major red flags. Though our D has not been perfect, it was the only thing that was consistent. There performance wasn't always dominate (though at times it was), but how much better would they be if they had an O that actually had the other team chasing to catch up? No doubt we would go from 15 (2010) to top 10. To add more uncertainty and change is beyond dumb, imo.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Fangio has mad experience over Manusky...and, he's a DC Harbaugh has total confidence in. I believe we'll see a more aggressive defense now...and some position upgrades (LDE, NT, OLB) to give VF more tools in his shed (so to speak). I think Fangio will be able to move the defense from an "almost" category to one that can better dictate what the opposing offense can do. BL, though is you can't really compare the two 'til Fangio has a few seasons in SF under his belt.

Jimmy Raye had "mad experience" too. Unfortunately, VFs track record is garbage. If we gave Manusky the same tools we plan to give VF, we would be dominate. People dont remember, but Manusky use to blitz a lot, until we started getting burned early in the season by the screen pass. In addition, our rushers couldn't get to the QB so usually when that happens a good QB will burn you. In all, Manusky wasn't great, but his record is much better than VFs. Three diffrent teams, three diffrent examples of a defense getting progressively worst. Coincidence, maybe?

He was the LB coach in NO when the team was quite good and the LBs were the heart of the defense. Had some very good records.

Then he followed Capers to Carolina where they started out 7-9 the first year and went 12-4 the next. Then two down years and they were fired.

Followed Capers to Houston in 2002 and did not have a winning record even though they had David Carr as their QB...imagine!

So, I don't think his record stinks but he did coach some very mediocre teams by hitching himself to Dom Capers.

Baltimore speaks for itself! Good D and he was assistant to HC for D & LBs 2006-9.

Not bad at Standford.

Not to interested in win loss record as winning and losing is a team effort. However, someone posted stats that showed his defenses getting statistcally worst every year he was there. Not impreessed by college d when you have an O that blows people out.

So, he gets no credit at Stanford because the O blows everyone out and he gets no credit in Houston because he had no offense. At no time was he in charge of the draft, FA, or any other aspect of management of the team, so you judge him on what was that again? Team getting worse? But you disregard NO and Carolina when the team did much better?

OK!

With all due respect, you used the phrase "no credit" not me. I said I "wasn't impressed", which is an accurate statement.

Obviously, how the offense peforms has an impact on the play/stats of the D. But to try and measure the quality of a DC based on a teams win/loss record is foolish.

The fact is, every defense that VF has taken over has gotten progressivly worst starting from the year he got there. This happened with three diffrent teams. Are there circumstances outside of VFs control that could have influenced that, absolutly! But as the DC he still has to bare the majority of the blame. If nothing else, the stats scream mediocare. This would not happend to a good/great DC. So spin it however you would like, but he has some major red flags. Though our D has not been perfect, it was the only thing that was consistent. There performance wasn't always dominate (though at times it was), but how much better would they be if they had an O that actually had the other team chasing to catch up? No doubt we would go from 15 (2010) to top 10. To add more uncertainty and change is beyond dumb, imo.

Still don't see any stats that support your position that the Ds declined. And I am pointing out that the team as a whole did better in NO and Carolina. You don't go from a losing record to 12-4 with just the offense getting better. I am not quoting you saying no credit or any credit, that is my reading of your argument(s).

We disagree but I'm not trying to put you down or be argumentative.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Fangio has mad experience over Manusky...and, he's a DC Harbaugh has total confidence in. I believe we'll see a more aggressive defense now...and some position upgrades (LDE, NT, OLB) to give VF more tools in his shed (so to speak). I think Fangio will be able to move the defense from an "almost" category to one that can better dictate what the opposing offense can do. BL, though is you can't really compare the two 'til Fangio has a few seasons in SF under his belt.

Jimmy Raye had "mad experience" too. Unfortunately, VFs track record is garbage. If we gave Manusky the same tools we plan to give VF, we would be dominate. People dont remember, but Manusky use to blitz a lot, until we started getting burned early in the season by the screen pass. In addition, our rushers couldn't get to the QB so usually when that happens a good QB will burn you. In all, Manusky wasn't great, but his record is much better than VFs. Three diffrent teams, three diffrent examples of a defense getting progressively worst. Coincidence, maybe?

He was the LB coach in NO when the team was quite good and the LBs were the heart of the defense. Had some very good records.

Then he followed Capers to Carolina where they started out 7-9 the first year and went 12-4 the next. Then two down years and they were fired.

Followed Capers to Houston in 2002 and did not have a winning record even though they had David Carr as their QB...imagine!

So, I don't think his record stinks but he did coach some very mediocre teams by hitching himself to Dom Capers.

Baltimore speaks for itself! Good D and he was assistant to HC for D & LBs 2006-9.

Not bad at Standford.

Not to interested in win loss record as winning and losing is a team effort. However, someone posted stats that showed his defenses getting statistcally worst every year he was there. Not impreessed by college d when you have an O that blows people out.

So, he gets no credit at Stanford because the O blows everyone out and he gets no credit in Houston because he had no offense. At no time was he in charge of the draft, FA, or any other aspect of management of the team, so you judge him on what was that again? Team getting worse? But you disregard NO and Carolina when the team did much better?

OK!

With all due respect, you used the phrase "no credit" not me. I said I "wasn't impressed", which is an accurate statement.

Obviously, how the offense peforms has an impact on the play/stats of the D. But to try and measure the quality of a DC based on a teams win/loss record is foolish.

The fact is, every defense that VF has taken over has gotten progressivly worst starting from the year he got there. This happened with three diffrent teams. Are there circumstances outside of VFs control that could have influenced that, absolutly! But as the DC he still has to bare the majority of the blame. If nothing else, the stats scream mediocare. This would not happend to a good/great DC. So spin it however you would like, but he has some major red flags. Though our D has not been perfect, it was the only thing that was consistent. There performance wasn't always dominate (though at times it was), but how much better would they be if they had an O that actually had the other team chasing to catch up? No doubt we would go from 15 (2010) to top 10. To add more uncertainty and change is beyond dumb, imo.

Still don't see any stats that support your position that the Ds declined. And I am pointing out that the team as a whole did better in NO and Carolina. You don't go from a losing record to 12-4 with just the offense getting better. I am not quoting you saying no credit or any credit, that is my reading of your argument(s).

We disagree but I'm not trying to put you down or be argumentative.

No problem. I can be a little defensive at times. Anyway, I think this is where I got my stats:

Here, I found some stats.

"When you look at the total yardage rankings related to Fangio's previous DC tenures, the underlying premise of the Twitter question seems to check out: In CAR, his defense went from 7th-best in 1995 to 10th in 1996 to15th in 1997 to 30th in his (and Capers') last season. In IND, Fangio's unit finished 15th in 1999, then 21st in 2000, then 29th in 2001. Finally, after reuniting with Capers in HOU, the Fang's Texan defense ended 2002 at #16, 2003 at #31, 2004 at #23, and 2005 at #31 again."
http://www.ninersnation.com/2011/1/14/1935931/jim-harbaugh-49ers-hire-vic-fangio-a-brief-statistical-evaluation-of


This came from the 9th page of the Fangio is our new DC thread. I believe it was started by NinerGM.

Originally posted by andes14:

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.[/quote]

I'm sure the Steelers ILB's have more than that, even with Timmons playing a lot more in coverage last season.

The statistical analysis from ninersnation.com was cited in a discussion as to Fangio's tendency to regress each year as a DC. But, the bottom line from the author of the piece is:

"So I think I've demonstrated that there's no statistical reason to worry about a Fang-led 49ers defense getting worse with age."

It is a great read and it saved me hours of looking up stats for each year of Fangio's career.

And to quote his bottom line:

"BOTTOM LINE
1.The total yardage stats and rankings for Fang's previous NFL defenses are meaningless.
2.According to better stats like DVOA, SRS, nYPA, and YPC, there's no pattern of Fang's NFL defenses getting worse every subsequent season.
3.Even if there was a pattern, it would still be meaningless because it's based on an incredibly small, unrepresentative sample. I bet I could find a pattern of shoddier and shoddier work over the course of 3 years in your employment past.
4.Even if there was a pattern, who cares? This is the NFL. You have to put any statistical analysis into the context of Vic's previous DC gigs. Going forward, the most important thing for the 49ers is whether or not he's got the talent at LB to run a successful 3-4 defense in SF. If he does, I bet you'd forget all about that pattern you saw."

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
The statistical analysis from ninersnation.com was cited in a discussion as to Fangio's tendency to regress each year as a DC. But, the bottom line from the author of the piece is:

"So I think I've demonstrated that there's no statistical reason to worry about a Fang-led 49ers defense getting worse with age."

It is a great read and it saved me hours of looking up stats for each year of Fangio's career.

And to quote his bottom line:

"BOTTOM LINE
1.The total yardage stats and rankings for Fang's previous NFL defenses are meaningless.
2.According to better stats like DVOA, SRS, nYPA, and YPC, there's no pattern of Fang's NFL defenses getting worse every subsequent season.
3.Even if there was a pattern, it would still be meaningless because it's based on an incredibly small, unrepresentative sample. I bet I could find a pattern of shoddier and shoddier work over the course of 3 years in your employment past.
4.Even if there was a pattern, who cares? This is the NFL. You have to put any statistical analysis into the context of Vic's previous DC gigs. Going forward, the most important thing for the 49ers is whether or not he's got the talent at LB to run a successful 3-4 defense in SF. If he does, I bet you'd forget all about that pattern you saw."

Wow. Not to shoot down my own origninal post, but this dude is a total VF hack, imo. The stats that I referred to are legit, the artical goes way out of its way to explain them away by using things like "strength of schedule", Football outsider modified numbers, and one other obscure stat.

I guess it's best for me just to disagree with this guy and leave it at that. It just seems very clear to me from the beginnning of the artical that this writer has an agenda.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
The statistical analysis from ninersnation.com was cited in a discussion as to Fangio's tendency to regress each year as a DC. But, the bottom line from the author of the piece is:

"So I think I've demonstrated that there's no statistical reason to worry about a Fang-led 49ers defense getting worse with age."

It is a great read and it saved me hours of looking up stats for each year of Fangio's career.

And to quote his bottom line:

"BOTTOM LINE
1.The total yardage stats and rankings for Fang's previous NFL defenses are meaningless.
2.According to better stats like DVOA, SRS, nYPA, and YPC, there's no pattern of Fang's NFL defenses getting worse every subsequent season.
3.Even if there was a pattern, it would still be meaningless because it's based on an incredibly small, unrepresentative sample. I bet I could find a pattern of shoddier and shoddier work over the course of 3 years in your employment past.
4.Even if there was a pattern, who cares? This is the NFL. You have to put any statistical analysis into the context of Vic's previous DC gigs. Going forward, the most important thing for the 49ers is whether or not he's got the talent at LB to run a successful 3-4 defense in SF. If he does, I bet you'd forget all about that pattern you saw."

Wow. Not to shoot down my own origninal post, but this dude is a total VF hack, imo. The stats that I referred to are legit, the artical goes way out of its way to explain them away by using things like "strength of schedule", Football outsider modified numbers, and one other obscure stat.

I guess it's best for me just to disagree with this guy and leave it at that. It just seems very clear to me from the beginnning of the artical that this writer has an agenda.

I think the author was trying to point out how statistics can be dangerous when assessing value in the NFL. Strength of schedule may seem unimportant but what if the D goes from 6th in the league to 10th, but their opponents are playoff teams the second year, non playoff teams the first? Or, if a team actually allows fewer points but is rated lower due to won/loss record or yards allowed? That was true several times in Fangio's experience.

If the 9ers play NE 16 straight games next year I would expect their record to be worse than if they play Arizona 16 straight games. So strength of schedule matters.

There are so many variables that I will give Fangio the benefit of the doubt until I see what the 9ers do next year and the year after. Hope they do well!

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
The statistical analysis from ninersnation.com was cited in a discussion as to Fangio's tendency to regress each year as a DC. But, the bottom line from the author of the piece is:

"So I think I've demonstrated that there's no statistical reason to worry about a Fang-led 49ers defense getting worse with age."

It is a great read and it saved me hours of looking up stats for each year of Fangio's career.

And to quote his bottom line:

"BOTTOM LINE
1.The total yardage stats and rankings for Fang's previous NFL defenses are meaningless.
2.According to better stats like DVOA, SRS, nYPA, and YPC, there's no pattern of Fang's NFL defenses getting worse every subsequent season.
3.Even if there was a pattern, it would still be meaningless because it's based on an incredibly small, unrepresentative sample. I bet I could find a pattern of shoddier and shoddier work over the course of 3 years in your employment past.
4.Even if there was a pattern, who cares? This is the NFL. You have to put any statistical analysis into the context of Vic's previous DC gigs. Going forward, the most important thing for the 49ers is whether or not he's got the talent at LB to run a successful 3-4 defense in SF. If he does, I bet you'd forget all about that pattern you saw."

Wow. Not to shoot down my own origninal post, but this dude is a total VF hack, imo. The stats that I referred to are legit, the artical goes way out of its way to explain them away by using things like "strength of schedule", Football outsider modified numbers, and one other obscure stat.

I guess it's best for me just to disagree with this guy and leave it at that. It just seems very clear to me from the beginnning of the artical that this writer has an agenda.

I think the author was trying to point out how statistics can be dangerous when assessing value in the NFL. Strength of schedule may seem unimportant but what if the D goes from 6th in the league to 10th, but their opponents are playoff teams the second year, non playoff teams the first? Or, if a team actually allows fewer points but is rated lower due to won/loss record or yards allowed? That was true several times in Fangio's experience.

If the 9ers play NE 16 straight games next year I would expect their record to be worse than if they play Arizona 16 straight games. So strength of schedule matters.

There are so many variables that I will give Fangio the benefit of the doubt until I see what the 9ers do next year and the year after. Hope they do well!

He's here. I hope he does well. I'm skeptical. It is, what it is.