Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
Originally posted by Allx9er:
who the heck is golston
vernon golston :) he played safety for us.
No, you are wrong about this.
There are 188 users in the forums
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
Originally posted by Allx9er:
who the heck is golston
vernon golston :) he played safety for us.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:yes. vernon golston is spelled as so and dashon goldson is spelled differently. I used the wrong spelling, they are very nitpicky around here.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
yes. vernon golston is spelled as so and dashon goldson is spelled differently. I used the wrong spelling, they are very nitpicky around here.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
Ok I've heard over and over that Brooks is a second team all-pro i would be willing to put money that brooks doesn't see another pro bowl. He wasn't even a top 5 player on his own defense last year, Willis Bowman the smiths and Golston all were more crucial to the team. I would be willing to argue that a case can be made for brown and whitner too.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
Originally posted by GNielsen:
Well, Ahmed Brooks has recorded 23.5 sacks over the last four seasons. That's not insignificant. It's 10 more than Julian Peterson recorded in his last four years with the team and lots of fans around here seem to think Peterson was an awesome sack-master. Let's keep in mind that players who get close to 20 sacks in a season are not very common, so comparing Brooks to Aldon Smith is not exactly fair. Aldon Smith is a truly amazing sack-man on the order of a Charles Haley or Fred Dean.
Well it's not insignificant, but I'm not impressed either. He had 6.5 sacks last year, and that's not very much. I realize that he is a better run stopper than a pass rusher, but I think he can be upgraded. So do you agree that our weakside passrush does need to be upgraded? or is it fine as is?
Originally posted by NCommand:
For educational purposes (and it's probably already been discussed (but the weak side is the opposite side the TE lines up at; strong side is the side the TE lines up at). You have two outside LBers. One is the strong (SAM = Brooks) and weak (WILL = Aldon). This is b/c the TE typically lines up on Brooks side of the formation which means Brooks not only has to watch for a RB "or" the TE flaring out but fight through BOTH the TE and OT if they stay in. If you watch ANY game, you will find that teams scheme to block out Brooks and rarely even attempt to run on Brooks/McDonald's side. Why bother? So if you're SAM is in the 6+ sack range, that is typically equal to 12+ sacks on the weak side (Aldon).
As to your one reference, notice how Brooks was the only one IN the backfield chasing him around? His rush kept him in the pocket, didn't allow him on the edge and had little, if any help from the rest of the front 7. This is just a great job of Wilson avoiding pressure from one guy and not having to worry too much about the other 6 front 7 guys. This is similar to having pressure on the outside by Brooks/Aldon but not having a NT (or ILB who fills the gap) to help collapse the pocket so a guy like Flacco can just step up and heave hail mary's for completions/TD's.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
The fact is we lost the superbowl. What does every 49er fan point to as one of the main excuses? Well Justin and Aldon weren't healthy. Well if Justin and Aldon weren't healthy then it's up to other guys to pick up the slack and make plays... That didn't happen. Ray Mcdonald is no JJ Watt and Ahmad brooks is no Von Miller, and that doesn't mean corey lemonier or tank carradine will be, but you never know.
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by NCommand:
For educational purposes (and it's probably already been discussed (but the weak side is the opposite side the TE lines up at; strong side is the side the TE lines up at). You have two outside LBers. One is the strong (SAM = Brooks) and weak (WILL = Aldon). This is b/c the TE typically lines up on Brooks side of the formation which means Brooks not only has to watch for a RB "or" the TE flaring out but fight through BOTH the TE and OT if they stay in. If you watch ANY game, you will find that teams scheme to block out Brooks and rarely even attempt to run on Brooks/McDonald's side. Why bother? So if you're SAM is in the 6+ sack range, that is typically equal to 12+ sacks on the weak side (Aldon).
As to your one reference, notice how Brooks was the only one IN the backfield chasing him around? His rush kept him in the pocket, didn't allow him on the edge and had little, if any help from the rest of the front 7. This is just a great job of Wilson avoiding pressure from one guy and not having to worry too much about the other 6 front 7 guys. This is similar to having pressure on the outside by Brooks/Aldon but not having a NT (or ILB who fills the gap) to help collapse the pocket so a guy like Flacco can just step up and heave hail mary's for completions/TD's.
Thanks for the reminder/lesson! Many seem to think the two positions are the same and that Brooks has a clean avenue to the QB...or no other responsibilities. Such a team game!
Originally posted by buck:
Considering that Ahmad Brooks is an All Pro linebacker, it is a more than reasonable deduction.
If I remember correctly, the players, and maybe the coaches, vote for the All Pro team. Is that right?
Pro Football Focus has Ahmad Brooks listed as the 5th best 3-4 outside linebacker in 2012.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
You can insult my intelligence all you want. Your just a homer that's ignorant.
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
Matthews
161 total tackles 29.5 6 FF 4 Int 10-12
last year he put up 43 tackles 13 sacks and a FF playing through an injury
Suggs
138 tt 25 sacks 9 FF 2 Int 10-11
Paul Kruger had more sacks than brooks and probably a better year all around. Paul Kruger is overrated and overpaid.
Second the combos
Pitt
Woodley 170 tt 35 sacks 6 FF 3 Int pre injury 3 years
77 tt 13 sacks 1 FF 2 Int while battling an injury 2 years
To me Brooks is a poor mans Woodley and it's funny cuz Woodley puts up similar numbers battling an injury
Harrison 280 tt 36.5 sacks 18FF 3 Int pre injury 3 years
129 tt 15 sacks 4 FF 2 years thru injury
Dallas
Ware
180 tt 46.5 sacks 9 FF 3 years
Spencer 224 tt 22 sacks 6 FF 3 years
KC
Houston 122 tt 15.5 sacks 2 FF 1 Int 2 years
Ali 168 tt 25.5 sacks 9FF 3 years.
SF
brooks 96 tt 13.5 sacks 3 FF 1 Int 2 years
smith 103 tt 33.5 sacks 5 FF 1 Int 2 years
Wash
Kerrigan
117 tt 16 sacks 6 FF 2 Int 2 years
Orakpo
165 tt 28.5 sacks 5 FF 3 years.
The packers would've been in the discussion had perry stayed healthy. All I'm saying is brooks looks to me like the least productive of the group, and although he's a good player I still think we can do a lot better. Same with McDonald, it's unfair to compare him to watt because they play differently but watt does so much more for your defense. You have to adjust the way you throw because he batts balls out of the air, had more than 20 sacks at a 3-4 defensive end which is absurd and was still formidable against the run.
I'm glad the webzone isn't running the team because they don't believe in change. If it ain't broke don't fix it... maybe but it can be improved upon and that's why they brought in the competiton.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
You can insult my intelligence all you want. Your just a homer that's ignorant.
It's, you're.
Originally posted by lamontb:
I don't think Brooks played all that well this season. After the interception in the Saints game he disappeared til the Falcons playoff game.
Originally posted by NCommand:
You've pretty much listed all WILL LBers in the 3-4...doing their jobs blitzing from the backside of the QB while the other front 7 players aid in this scheme; to "attack." Pittsburgh was the ideal but they scheme VERY differently than Fangio. Both OLB's in the Steelers scheme are rotated often and attack behind the LOS from various positions. We play very vanilla under Fangio. You're issue isn't with Brooks. It's with Fangio. This issue (and the lack of depth and rotation the past two years) seems to be your real concern and it's one we all share. So hopefully with more depth and players with upside, Fangio himself may start to scheme more aggressively as well which in turn, can help the secondary.