There are 162 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Dorsey gives us a ferocious 4-3 front on passing downs!

  • cciowa
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,190
Originally posted by Wrathman:
Originally posted by Garcia:
I thought we got rid of Dorsey years ago?


That pic makes me sick!
he was better than cody
Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
I think you nailed it down fairly well... have not given that a ton of thought, but yeah, Ray and Justin had over 1000 snaps a piece... that has to go down a bit. 700-800 should be fine. Those guys are work-out warriors and in great shape for that.

Lemonier is an interesting guy in the mold of a baby Brooks. He is athletic... can run the arc well... and can come in at DE every now and then in our obvious pass downs. Lem just needs to improve on his run contain. Brooks also had over a thousand snaps... way too many. My hope is that our offense can be more dynamic with putting up points that we don't feel so pressed into that stubborness of 1000+ snaps for these guys.

Well, a dynamic offense (i.e. quick scoring) generally means more snaps for the D.

I have some sour grapes over the draft because I don't think we were aggressive enough in getting "higher rated" "bulkier" DT/NT types that aren't at a size disadvantage with today's weight inflated OLs.

If Tank can't make it back this year and is on PUP or IR, then I think we are in trouble. What is the plan B? Spend a wad on cut DL's that can still bring it?

Seymour, Canty, etc?

Who is Divens?

And by "trouble" I mean we are at risk for the same grind down effect as last year. And remember both Smiths are coming of singificant surgery.
[ Edited by brodiebluebanaszak on May 1, 2013 at 10:26 AM ]
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
I think you nailed it down fairly well... have not given that a ton of thought, but yeah, Ray and Justin had over 1000 snaps a piece... that has to go down a bit. 700-800 should be fine. Those guys are work-out warriors and in great shape for that.

Lemonier is an interesting guy in the mold of a baby Brooks. He is athletic... can run the arc well... and can come in at DE every now and then in our obvious pass downs. Lem just needs to improve on his run contain. Brooks also had over a thousand snaps... way too many. My hope is that our offense can be more dynamic with putting up points that we don't feel so pressed into that stubborness of 1000+ snaps for these guys.

Well, a dynamic offense (i.e. quick scoring) generally means more snaps for the D.

I have some sour grapes over the draft because I don't think we were aggressive enough in getting "higher rated" "bulkier" DT/NT types that aren't at a size disadvantage with today's weight inflated OLs.

If Tank can't make it back this year and is on PUP or IR, then I think we are in trouble. What is the plan B? Spend a wad on cut DL's that can still bring it?

Seymour, Canty, etc?

Who is Divens?

Dynamic offense may be a poor choice of words. What I mean is.. a more potent, scoring offense. But even if it becomes a quick scoring offense? That can still allow for some more backup reps. Think in terms of basketball. The Heat are up 50-30 with a couple minutes in the half left... so Labron and other highy regarded players take a seat to rest up while the bench players take the court and try to maintain as much a lead as they can.

Sounds to me like Carradine will be ready to play soon enough... and we still have some interesting backup options.. unproven still, but hungry to impress. So we'll see. A bit too early to pin such hopes on a 2nd rd rookie this season.
Actually, not being able to get off the field on 3rd down is usually the reason a D gets more snaps. If a defense is playing too many snaps, that means the defense is not stopping the opposing team's offense.
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Well, a dynamic offense (i.e. quick scoring) generally means more snaps for the D.

I have some sour grapes over the draft because I don't think we were aggressive enough in getting "higher rated" "bulkier" DT/NT types that aren't at a size disadvantage with today's weight inflated OLs.

If Tank can't make it back this year and is on PUP or IR, then I think we are in trouble. What is the plan B? Spend a wad on cut DL's that can still bring it?

Seymour, Canty, etc?

Who is Divens?

And by "trouble" I mean we are at risk for the same grind down effect as last year. And remember both Smiths are coming of singificant surgery.

Tank ran a 4.75 40 yard dash at his pro day a few weeks ago. I'd be surprised if he's not 100% when the season starts, let alone in December. Beyond Tank we have Dial, Dorsey, and Ian Williams who signed an extension recently, so they obviously like something about him. Our D-line looks solid heading into camp. I think the defense "wearing down" gets completely blown out of proportion. Yeah they played a lot of downs, but Aldon and Justin tore muscles right around the same time.
Originally posted by Wrathman:
Originally posted by Garcia:
I thought we got rid of Dorsey years ago?


That pic makes me sick!

Dude was so bad I totally didn't even realize that he was #7. I mean that almost always comes up as a topic but as far as I'm concerned Kaep pioneered that # for us.
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by NeeJ49er:
I wouldnt mind some 4-3 splashed in with our other defensive packages ...but we are a 3-4 team .....we will have a versatile rotation of defensive lineman for nickel and dime packages ....but if we land woodson , our pass coverage in our base defense gets better the second Woody hits the field

Meh Woodson is ooold and not the player most here on the zone are making him out to be. Our pass D will improve marginally while our run D suffers significantly should we sign him.

It wasn't Woodson's fault GB looked stupid against us last year in the playoffs. I thought he played well. His speed is still adequate and he has the mind and physical ability to play at a decent level even at his age. Injury issues have been the culprit for his two down seasons. While this is possibly a sign of age, I feel he could still contribute enough to be an asset at the right price.
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Well, a dynamic offense (i.e. quick scoring) generally means more snaps for the D.

I have some sour grapes over the draft because I don't think we were aggressive enough in getting "higher rated" "bulkier" DT/NT types that aren't at a size disadvantage with today's weight inflated OLs.

If Tank can't make it back this year and is on PUP or IR, then I think we are in trouble. What is the plan B? Spend a wad on cut DL's that can still bring it?

Seymour, Canty, etc?

Who is Divens?

And by "trouble" I mean we are at risk for the same grind down effect as last year. And remember both Smiths are coming of singificant surgery.


You know Lamar Diven practice squad etroadinare:

http://www.elkvalleytimes.com/?p=13038

We signed him to the prcatice squad when our line started to become depleted late last year. You didnt know he was our future starting NT?
Dorsey's a solid, versatile addition to the DL. Arguably our starting NT and can line up alongside Justin Smith in the hybrid. I'm also excited at the potential Dial has...huge dude, can play anywhere on the DL and plays w/attitude.
So what is the plan B just in case Tank's knee gets sore again, + Dial, Divens, Williams need additional polish. Do we go shopping?
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by NeeJ49er:
I wouldnt mind some 4-3 splashed in with our other defensive packages ...but we are a 3-4 team .....we will have a versatile rotation of defensive lineman for nickel and dime packages ....but if we land woodson , our pass coverage in our base defense gets better the second Woody hits the field

Meh Woodson is ooold and not the player most here on the zone are making him out to be. Our pass D will improve marginally while our run D suffers significantly should we sign him.

It wasn't Woodson's fault GB looked stupid against us last year in the playoffs. I thought he played well. His speed is still adequate and he has the mind and physical ability to play at a decent level even at his age. Injury issues have been the culprit for his two down seasons. While this is possibly a sign of age, I feel he could still contribute enough to be an asset at the right price.
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by FunkNinerFlex:
Originally posted by cools:


Could we see somthing like this ala Seifert? kind of a cross between 3-4 and 4-3 without needing a true 3-4 type NT

The inside guys playing 1 and 3 tech, A.Smith as the Elephant, Willis shines with the freedom as a Wil

Wouldn't Bowman be the WIl?

I can see this happening. But will wait until we see who else we sign and draft. And yes, Bowman would be the Wil.

- 98

Isn't this really what we already see anyway. Smith is at the LOS more than he is off.
dorsey probowler...book it! gotcha...but fangio will find a way to utilize his strengths. He was the first big signing for us so im guessing harbaugh and company saw something they liked and put the full court press on him to ensure he ends up in a 49er jersey
  • SaksV
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 882
Originally posted by BadgerHawk:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by NeeJ49er:
I wouldnt mind some 4-3 splashed in with our other defensive packages ...but we are a 3-4 team .....we will have a versatile rotation of defensive lineman for nickel and dime packages ....but if we land woodson , our pass coverage in our base defense gets better the second Woody hits the field

Meh Woodson is ooold and not the player most here on the zone are making him out to be. Our pass D will improve marginally while our run D suffers significantly should we sign him.

It wasn't Woodson's fault GB looked stupid against us last year in the playoffs. I thought he played well. His speed is still adequate and he has the mind and physical ability to play at a decent level even at his age. Injury issues have been the culprit for his two down seasons. While this is possibly a sign of age, I feel he could still contribute enough to be an asset at the right price.
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by FunkNinerFlex:
Originally posted by cools:


Could we see somthing like this ala Seifert? kind of a cross between 3-4 and 4-3 without needing a true 3-4 type NT

The inside guys playing 1 and 3 tech, A.Smith as the Elephant, Willis shines with the freedom as a Wil

Wouldn't Bowman be the WIl?

I can see this happening. But will wait until we see who else we sign and draft. And yes, Bowman would be the Wil.

- 98

Isn't this really what we already see anyway. Smith is at the LOS more than he is off.

Yep. The 49ers switched from a traditional base 3-4 (nose tackle directly over center playing 0 tech) to a 4-3 "Under" front when Greg Manusky left town.