There are 182 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Agree?: Lack of Depth Lead to our Bad Pass D

Originally posted by YoungWifey:
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Wubbie:
So Maiocco had an article about why our Passing D failed us in the playoffs (http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/matt-maiocco/why-49ers-pass-defense-faltered-playoffs).
He said, pretty much, that our secondary is fine, our starting pass-rushers are fine, but the lack of depth killed our late-season pass-rush.

Do you agree? In watching the playoffs, it felt like we had minimal pass-rush. Obviously, the regular season stats back up how good our pass defense is, yet something went wrong in the playoffs. It makes sense. We didn't have the same explosiveness from our pass-rush, and it's very well-documented how little our players sub out.

I really agree though. Yes, there were of course some blown assignments in the secondary, or times were they were beat, but I felt like guys were in good position to make plays. It felt like quarterbacks were beating good coverage with perfect throws. They weren't very well-disrupted.

If it truly is the case of a lack of depth in the front 7, that's definitely on Trent Baalke, and to some extent, the coaching staff, for not rotating the players more.
Thoughts?

Well I partially agree.

I think we have issues in coverage from our safety position, but depth on the D-Line is an issue. Not rotating those players also has something to do with who they have to play those spots if they rotate (IE...they don't have much).

I can't go with the "thats on Trent Baalke" thing tho. Yeah, he needs to improve that position but it's not like there is any other team in the NFL who is completely without weaknesses. That just happens to be ours. There are only so many players on a roster.

You simply aren't going to have a team that is great at every position and have really good backups at all of those positions as well. That's not reasonable.

The 49ers will do something to try and rectify that situation this offseason...but next year it might be something else that isn't perfect. All teams are flawed in some way...they just have to overcome those flaws.

This. Maiocco makes a great point but we also clearly have coverage issues in the secondary.

But the problem is, how do you stop teams that have multiple receiving threats like Jones/White/Gonzo in Atlanta or Jones/Boldin/Smith in Baltimore? Not even Seattle, who IMO have the best secondary in the league, could stop Atlanta.

I don't really remember much about the Giants/Packers divisional round last season and the Packers were stacked with receivers but I'm wondering, what was it that helped the NYG beat the Packers last year?

I know we beat Atlanta but it did kind of help that Matty choked and got hurt in the end.

atlanta only threw for about 250 yards that day, seattle gave up 170 on the ground though
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by Dshearn:
Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
Yes I agree totally.

It's plain and simple that when Justin went down - our secondary got exposed. How many yards passing did Brady get in the first half when JSmith was in the game and how many yards did he get in the 2nd half when Justin was out? I could be wrong but didn't he more than double his passing yards? Our pass rush wasn't nearly as effective - case closed!

Add to that we didn't have a rotation worth snot. Our starters were on the filed 90%+ in most of the games.

Factor in that we played against some excellent QB's and our secondary wasn't as good as the season prior.

There are some quality FA's and we have plenty of picks to fix it in the short and long term.

I have never really seen such a switch off before....but it was so night and day.

Justin smith must have a stud back up asap if he is THAT important.


NE adjusting may have had something to do with the difference between the first half and the second, but Justin is that important. When he is out and they go to a four man line there just isn't as much penetration. It seemed more effective for them to keep the three man line and blitz one of the MLBs.

Again, ITA. Not sure why didn't blitz a LB versus adding another so-so "pass rusher".
  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,190
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Again, ITA. Not sure why didn't blitz a LB versus adding another so-so "pass rusher".

many of us led by nc command were asking that in the super bowl. why have two pro bowlers setting around playing f**king checkers in pass coverage when you can bring them with pressure once in a while. god damn it
Old story , CC," if you can't cover, blitz." And nobody ever really covered any of their 3 horses. Fangio shoulda blitzed more and then we would have seen how their terrible 3-some did with their Qb on his back.