There are 52 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by jonnydel:
very true, and, if everyone wants to see us stop giving up short throws, exotic blitzing and more blitzing period is not the answer. When you blitz you almost never take less men out of deep coverage responsibilities, mainly because you're asking to get beat deep when you do that. Instead, it's usually pulling someone out of short coverage responsibilities.

For example: If you blitz with a man-man coverage with either a cover 0 or cover 1 your DB's are going to give up something short as they cannot let anyone get behind them because of the lack of safety help.
If we go with an exotic fire zone type of blitz you're still using a basic cover 3 zone on the deep end and using 1-2 less men on the underneath zones. With a normal blitz zone you tend to vacate a flat responsibility from the extra rusher.
So, all those short throws that everyone wants to see stopped aren't going to be stopped by more blitzing. You need more men in coverage to stop those or have a major risk of giving up a big play.

Mmmm, yes, but our normal coverage wasn't working. So to me, sending an extra blitzer has a better chance of disrupting the flow and rhythm of the offense at the cost of giving up a few extra yac for short passes. The other guys would just score sooner. That would actually help us. A blitz approach also tries to put our best athletes closer to the qb. The strength of the D is (was) smith smith bowman willis brooks lemonier skuta whitner. How do we get those guys on the field running after the q? the other team was going down the field 1-2-3 with timing routes.
[ Edited by brodiebluebanaszak on Mar 28, 2014 at 6:31 PM ]
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
very true, and, if everyone wants to see us stop giving up short throws, exotic blitzing and more blitzing period is not the answer. When you blitz you almost never take less men out of deep coverage responsibilities, mainly because you're asking to get beat deep when you do that. Instead, it's usually pulling someone out of short coverage responsibilities.

For example: If you blitz with a man-man coverage with either a cover 0 or cover 1 your DB's are going to give up something short as they cannot let anyone get behind them because of the lack of safety help.
If we go with an exotic fire zone type of blitz you're still using a basic cover 3 zone on the deep end and using 1-2 less men on the underneath zones. With a normal blitz zone you tend to vacate a flat responsibility from the extra rusher.
So, all those short throws that everyone wants to see stopped aren't going to be stopped by more blitzing. You need more men in coverage to stop those or have a major risk of giving up a big play.

Mmmm, yes, but our normal coverage wasn't working. So to me, sending an extra blitzer has a better chance of disrupting the flow and rhythm of the offense at the cost of giving up a few extra yac for short passes. The other guys would just score sooner. That would actually help us. A blitz approach also tries to put our best athletes closer to the qb. The strength of the D is (was) smith smith bowman willis brooks lemonier skuta whitner. How do we get those guys on the field running after the q? the other team was going down the field 1-2-3 with timing routes.
we were 7th in overall pass defense, 11th in passing %, 6th in avg passing yds per attempt, 5th in TD's allowed, and 4th in passer rtng against. So, we did have an effective pass defense, especially considering how often teams were passing on us because of our stout run defense. Often times, teams completed so many short passes because that's all they can do. Personally, I'm not concerned about the dink and dunk as we really do play the pass well. We won a lot of games with a sub par offense and our defense hasn't slipped at all.
Originally posted by jonnydel:
we were 7th in overall pass defense, 11th in passing %, 6th in avg passing yds per attempt, 5th in TD's allowed, and 4th in passer rtng against. So, we did have an effective pass defense, especially considering how often teams were passing on us because of our stout run defense. Often times, teams completed so many short passes because that's all they can do. Personally, I'm not concerned about the dink and dunk as we really do play the pass well. We won a lot of games with a sub par offense and our defense hasn't slipped at all.


Generally yes, I agree. But the individual games tell a different story. We need to have an answer for the dink and dunk when its bringing the other team back in the game. It happened several times in the second half of the season. So, I think that whatever the right approach is -- blitz, more coverage shenanigans, better personnel in db -- it's an adjustment that the staff should spend time looking into and implementing.

Lapses like that are the reason people didn't take us seriously as favorites for the super bowl last year, IMO. We had a hard time putting away teams we should have beaten in the 3rd quarter. When you look back at the final score, we appear in control. But when you look closer you find that it took a last second field goal, or a miracle from Bowman or the special teams to provide the separation. Those plays covered our deficiencies last year, especially on offense.

I don't see our offense improving greatly this year, honestly, now that the read option is ancient history.

So our defense has to get better. We can't rely on spectacular plays, or clutch plays with time winding down, for a winning formula.

It needs to be more boring than that.
[ Edited by brodiebluebanaszak on Mar 29, 2014 at 5:32 AM ]
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,932
Originally posted by thl408:
You touched on many points there, good post. I actually think Bowman just kind of emerged out of 'nowhere'. He was a 3rd rounder that now plays like a top5 pick. I think I get what you are saying, but Bow just kind of fell into the 49er's lap. Even they could not have known Bow would be this awesome. So we can't fault Fangio for having 2 all-pro ILBs while not having any all-pro CBs.

Thanks for the insight into Seifert's philosophy. I would say that since the 49er's offense was dynamite in the glory years, it made a lot of sense to focus on producing great DBs since the opponent were passing to play catch up. That isn't the case with this current 49er team.

It seems you would rather build a defense starting with the defensive backfield because it is a passing league, as you said. Meaning build a defense by investing more into DBs with the front 7 being lower on the priority list. Something has to come first and foremost, correct? I feel that when you lose the war in the trenches, it really starts a rippling effect within the game. Now, as the opposing RB is averaging a nice 4 yards a carry, a safety has to come down to help out. Play action begins to take an effect on the defense as they start to gear up and stop the run, putting pressure on the DBs.

Speaking specifically about the 49ers and their division foes, namely SEA. I think it is vital that the 49ers stop the run first and foremost. SEA couldn't muster much offensively until Lynch started to have success. Then the field began to tilt towards SEA's favor. The 49ers have done very well versus the pass-first teams that have excellent QBs, so the results are there. What the 49ers try to achieve is making the opponent one dimensional so that they don't dare think about running the ball. At that point, the front four can pin their ears back to get after the QB with no respect for the running game.

I agree with you that the 49ers should now focus on the DBs, but only because the front 7 is nicely stacked. That must come first, imo.

I posted this either earlier or on another thread. There are two ways to stop the run. First of course is a strong front seven. No argument there. Second way is to play a ball control offense and play keep away. (that ball control could be a ground and pound strategy or a horizontal ball control passing strategy) either way it's a keep away kind of offense. What keep away offenses do is prevent the other team from getting the ball and either passing or running offensively, hence indirectly - you stop the run that way.

George's defenses were good enough in stopping the run. You mention that the game is won in the trenches - I agree. George agrees. His super bowl defensive lines were one of the best in the NFL, perhaps as good or better than some of the Steeler Defensive lines. Anyone remember ARchie Reese celebrating stopping Pete Johnson? Key point here, Linebackers don't operate at the trenches, so in a sense they are indirectly involved in the trench warfare.
George's schemes did not ignore the fact that games are won in the trenches.

Bowman and Willis are awesome inside linebackers and I think it was a bit of luck that Bowman has developed so nicely - but I also think it has much more to do with Fangio's eye for linebacker talent, and it's similar to Harbaugh's eye for QB talent. Wherever Fangio has gone, he's had all pro linebackers. More importantly he's always had all pro hybrid OLB/DE's - that's a fantastic talent to have as a defensive coach. Fangio uses his coaching strengths which is linebackers to lead his defense. I think it's his philosophy. There are two ways to look at the 49er defensive backfield situation, either the front office hasn't done a good job in drafting DB's or that Fangio/along with the front office - philosophically and intentionally focused on the front seven to the detriment of the secondary. I think it's the latter, and that needs to be adjusted somewhat in this draft and going forward from here on to the future.

Re: Seattle. Against one dimensional passing or rushing teams, of course this defense will dominate. This defense has excellent personnel at every position. But when this defense encounters a balanced attack like Seattle in the playoffs with a elite passing attack, it fails. It has failed three times in the post season, and I don't think it's all luck either. I think the 49ers have to revisit their defensive philosophy and look a what has worked in the past. Georg's situation substitution isn't as effective nowadays because it can be countered with a no-huddle offense. However, I don't think tactics are at fault either, I think it's philosophy and strategy. All our 5 super bowls had great defensive backs roaming in the secondary, I think it's important to note that. Jack Reynolds, Gary Plummer, Mike Walter, Riki Ellison, Matt Millen (yes all pro Ken Norton was there too) they were our inside linebackers in our super bowls, and I don't see anybody voting them into the hall of fame. They were good linebackers, but they weren't all pro (except for Ken - but San Diego scored I think 20+ points on that defense in '94). Most of our inside linebackers were very good at stopping the run, but came out on third downs.

I'll end with this. Good strong CB's that can run support and cover are rare athletes and probably you need to expend draft capital in the 1st to 3rd round range to get them. Good Strong run supporting CB's can turn outside runs back into the pursuit. That will place less importance on inside Linebackers with speed and range like a Willis or Bowman. If you have an outstanding D Line, and good strong run stuffing linebackers *and* great safeties that can cover *and* tackle like linebackers, plus very strong corners that are very good at run support, it's unlikely any team can run over your defense. Just take a look at Cheat Carroll's defense - it looks just like George's defenses back during the dynasty years. And why shouldn't it? He was George Siefert's coordinator here with the 49ers for a while.
Originally posted by Giedi:
I posted this either earlier or on another thread. There are two ways to stop the run. First of course is a strong front seven. No argument there. Second way is to play a ball control offense and play keep away. (that ball control could be a ground and pound strategy or a horizontal ball control passing strategy) either way it's a keep away kind of offense. What keep away offenses do is prevent the other team from getting the ball and either passing or running offensively, hence indirectly - you stop the run that way.

George's defenses were good enough in stopping the run. You mention that the game is won in the trenches - I agree. George agrees. His super bowl defensive lines were one of the best in the NFL, perhaps as good or better than some of the Steeler Defensive lines. Anyone remember ARchie Reese celebrating stopping Pete Johnson? Key point here, Linebackers don't operate at the trenches, so in a sense they are indirectly involved in the trench warfare.
George's schemes did not ignore the fact that games are won in the trenches.

Bowman and Willis are awesome inside linebackers and I think it was a bit of luck that Bowman has developed so nicely - but I also think it has much more to do with Fangio's eye for linebacker talent, and it's similar to Harbaugh's eye for QB talent. Wherever Fangio has gone, he's had all pro linebackers. More importantly he's always had all pro hybrid OLB/DE's - that's a fantastic talent to have as a defensive coach. Fangio uses his coaching strengths which is linebackers to lead his defense. I think it's his philosophy. There are two ways to look at the 49er defensive backfield situation, either the front office hasn't done a good job in drafting DB's or that Fangio/along with the front office - philosophically and intentionally focused on the front seven to the detriment of the secondary. I think it's the latter, and that needs to be adjusted somewhat in this draft and going forward from here on to the future.

Re: Seattle. Against one dimensional passing or rushing teams, of course this defense will dominate. This defense has excellent personnel at every position. But when this defense encounters a balanced attack like Seattle in the playoffs with a elite passing attack, it fails. It has failed three times in the post season, and I don't think it's all luck either. I think the 49ers have to revisit their defensive philosophy and look a what has worked in the past. Georg's situation substitution isn't as effective nowadays because it can be countered with a no-huddle offense. However, I don't think tactics are at fault either, I think it's philosophy and strategy. All our 5 super bowls had great defensive backs roaming in the secondary, I think it's important to note that. Jack Reynolds, Gary Plummer, Mike Walter, Riki Ellison, Matt Millen (yes all pro Ken Norton was there too) they were our inside linebackers in our super bowls, and I don't see anybody voting them into the hall of fame. They were good linebackers, but they weren't all pro (except for Ken - but San Diego scored I think 20+ points on that defense in '94). Most of our inside linebackers were very good at stopping the run, but came out on third downs.

I'll end with this. Good strong CB's that can run support and cover are rare athletes and probably you need to expend draft capital in the 1st to 3rd round range to get them. Good Strong run supporting CB's can turn outside runs back into the pursuit. That will place less importance on inside Linebackers with speed and range like a Willis or Bowman. If you have an outstanding D Line, and good strong run stuffing linebackers *and* great safeties that can cover *and* tackle like linebackers, plus very strong corners that are very good at run support, it's unlikely any team can run over your defense. Just take a look at Cheat Carroll's defense - it looks just like George's defenses back during the dynasty years. And why shouldn't it? He was George Siefert's coordinator here with the 49ers for a while.

did you say seattle has an elite passing attack? lulz
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by thl408:
You touched on many points there, good post. I actually think Bowman just kind of emerged out of 'nowhere'. He was a 3rd rounder that now plays like a top5 pick. I think I get what you are saying, but Bow just kind of fell into the 49er's lap. Even they could not have known Bow would be this awesome. So we can't fault Fangio for having 2 all-pro ILBs while not having any all-pro CBs.

Thanks for the insight into Seifert's philosophy. I would say that since the 49er's offense was dynamite in the glory years, it made a lot of sense to focus on producing great DBs since the opponent were passing to play catch up. That isn't the case with this current 49er team.

It seems you would rather build a defense starting with the defensive backfield because it is a passing league, as you said. Meaning build a defense by investing more into DBs with the front 7 being lower on the priority list. Something has to come first and foremost, correct? I feel that when you lose the war in the trenches, it really starts a rippling effect within the game. Now, as the opposing RB is averaging a nice 4 yards a carry, a safety has to come down to help out. Play action begins to take an effect on the defense as they start to gear up and stop the run, putting pressure on the DBs.

Speaking specifically about the 49ers and their division foes, namely SEA. I think it is vital that the 49ers stop the run first and foremost. SEA couldn't muster much offensively until Lynch started to have success. Then the field began to tilt towards SEA's favor. The 49ers have done very well versus the pass-first teams that have excellent QBs, so the results are there. What the 49ers try to achieve is making the opponent one dimensional so that they don't dare think about running the ball. At that point, the front four can pin their ears back to get after the QB with no respect for the running game.

I agree with you that the 49ers should now focus on the DBs, but only because the front 7 is nicely stacked. That must come first, imo.

I posted this either earlier or on another thread. There are two ways to stop the run. First of course is a strong front seven. No argument there. Second way is to play a ball control offense and play keep away. (that ball control could be a ground and pound strategy or a horizontal ball control passing strategy) either way it's a keep away kind of offense. What keep away offenses do is prevent the other team from getting the ball and either passing or running offensively, hence indirectly - you stop the run that way.

George's defenses were good enough in stopping the run. You mention that the game is won in the trenches - I agree. George agrees. His super bowl defensive lines were one of the best in the NFL, perhaps as good or better than some of the Steeler Defensive lines. Anyone remember ARchie Reese celebrating stopping Pete Johnson? Key point here, Linebackers don't operate at the trenches, so in a sense they are indirectly involved in the trench warfare.
George's schemes did not ignore the fact that games are won in the trenches.

Bowman and Willis are awesome inside linebackers and I think it was a bit of luck that Bowman has developed so nicely - but I also think it has much more to do with Fangio's eye for linebacker talent, and it's similar to Harbaugh's eye for QB talent. Wherever Fangio has gone, he's had all pro linebackers. More importantly he's always had all pro hybrid OLB/DE's - that's a fantastic talent to have as a defensive coach. Fangio uses his coaching strengths which is linebackers to lead his defense. I think it's his philosophy. There are two ways to look at the 49er defensive backfield situation, either the front office hasn't done a good job in drafting DB's or that Fangio/along with the front office - philosophically and intentionally focused on the front seven to the detriment of the secondary. I think it's the latter, and that needs to be adjusted somewhat in this draft and going forward from here on to the future.

Re: Seattle. Against one dimensional passing or rushing teams, of course this defense will dominate. This defense has excellent personnel at every position. But when this defense encounters a balanced attack like Seattle in the playoffs with a elite passing attack, it fails. It has failed three times in the post season, and I don't think it's all luck either. I think the 49ers have to revisit their defensive philosophy and look a what has worked in the past. Georg's situation substitution isn't as effective nowadays because it can be countered with a no-huddle offense. However, I don't think tactics are at fault either, I think it's philosophy and strategy. All our 5 super bowls had great defensive backs roaming in the secondary, I think it's important to note that. Jack Reynolds, Gary Plummer, Mike Walter, Riki Ellison, Matt Millen (yes all pro Ken Norton was there too) they were our inside linebackers in our super bowls, and I don't see anybody voting them into the hall of fame. They were good linebackers, but they weren't all pro (except for Ken - but San Diego scored I think 20+ points on that defense in '94). Most of our inside linebackers were very good at stopping the run, but came out on third downs.

I'll end with this. Good strong CB's that can run support and cover are rare athletes and probably you need to expend draft capital in the 1st to 3rd round range to get them. Good Strong run supporting CB's can turn outside runs back into the pursuit. That will place less importance on inside Linebackers with speed and range like a Willis or Bowman. If you have an outstanding D Line, and good strong run stuffing linebackers *and* great safeties that can cover *and* tackle like linebackers, plus very strong corners that are very good at run support, it's unlikely any team can run over your defense. Just take a look at Cheat Carroll's defense - it looks just like George's defenses back during the dynasty years. And why shouldn't it? He was George Siefert's coordinator here with the 49ers for a while.
well for one: Bowman was drafted by Singletary and Singetary was the one who pushed for him to get playing time over Takeo Spikes.
Also, are you saying we shouldn't have guys like Willis and Bowman on our team? Cause it sounds like you're saying that we emphasize having those guys on our team too much and it costs us on defense??

Plus, our corners last year did do pretty well in run support. Watching the film on the NFCCG Brock came up many times to take on Lynch on his stretch runs making several tackles and/or partial tackles on runs for little or no gain.

For me, the bigger concern in our secondary is consistent mental focus about assignments throughout the course of a game. I thought those hurt us more than anything in games last year.
The Seattle defense of last year really doesn't look like any of Seiferts personnel, to me.

Until this edition, the niners always put the crown jewels on the other side of the ball. The cliche was "bend not break" . Undersized, pass covering line backers, one stud rusher, one athlete in the deep part of the field, and everyone else the best you could get with the money you had left. That was the formula in the 80's.

In the 90's, despite the free agents, I don't really think the d ever morphed into a physical, intimidating unit. Even now, we are not that D, our line is too light. Seattle puts several 300 pounders up front. SO, I don't see it.
[ Edited by brodiebluebanaszak on Mar 30, 2014 at 5:38 AM ]
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,932
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
The Seattle defense of last year really doesn't look like any of Seiferts personnel, to me.

Until this edition, the niners always put the crown jewels on the other side of the ball. The cliche was "bend not break" . Undersized, pass covering line backers, one stud rusher, one athlete in the deep part of the field, and everyone else the best you could get with the money you had left. That was the formula in the 80's.

In the 90's, despite the free agents, I don't really think the d ever morphed into a physical, intimidating unit. Even now, we are not that D, our line is too light. Seattle puts several 300 pounders up front. SO, I don't see it.

Just wanted to remind you that in 1984 - the **entire** secondary was voted to the pro bowl. Let me ask you how many of the 1984 linebackers were voted to the pro bowl that year? Contrast that with 2013 when basically our entire linebacker corps was in the pro-bowl either as first, second or alternate team.
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,932
Originally posted by jonnydel:
well for one: Bowman was drafted by Singletary and Singetary was the one who pushed for him to get playing time over Takeo Spikes.
Also, are you saying we shouldn't have guys like Willis and Bowman on our team? Cause it sounds like you're saying that we emphasize having those guys on our team too much and it costs us on defense??

Plus, our corners last year did do pretty well in run support. Watching the film on the NFCCG Brock came up many times to take on Lynch on his stretch runs making several tackles and/or partial tackles on runs for little or no gain.

For me, the bigger concern in our secondary is consistent mental focus about assignments throughout the course of a game. I thought those hurt us more than anything in games last year.

From my recollection, Bowman didn't get more playing time till Fangio became DC. And... NO... I don't think we are over emphasizing the LB at the expense of the defensive backfield corps. Rather, I think we are under drafting the defensive secondary position. I LOVE Fangio's pressure schemes, but where he needs to develop his defense is in his coverage schemes, and it will help immensely if Baalke/Fangio expend high draft capital for much more physically gifted DB's that can do more than one thing. Example: Tank and Dial were redshirted, what if instead we drafted a CB that could have played last year? (I know hindsight is 20/20) If a DB can run support **AND** drop back and cover, and if a Safety can **run** support AND drop back and cover, it makes a QB's work at reading defenses much more difficult. A stronger secondary and a less talented linebacking corps does not mean a weaker run defense. Our first four super bowl defenses were some of the best run defenses we've ever had. I want him to continue to use the 3-4 blitzing scheme he uses, but in the post season, I want our secondary to be as talented as George's secondaries.

Not as easy thing to do since George Seifert had a great talent at developing defensive back, and I think Fangio has that same knack **but** its on the linebacker position. Again, the thing I am trying to get at is the difference between George's defenses which are 5-0 in super bowls, and Fangio's which is 0-1 (technically 0-3 if you count the other two losses as us being the actual runner up to the super bowl winner).
Originally posted by Giedi:
Just wanted to remind you that in 1984 - the **entire** secondary was voted to the pro bowl. Let me ask you how many of the 1984 linebackers were voted to the pro bowl that year? Contrast that with 2013 when basically our entire linebacker corps was in the pro-bowl either as first, second or alternate team.


Isn't that my point? We are usually back loaded on D, not front loaded. The big intimidating defenses usualy start with bullies up front.Joe Greene. Randy WHite. Bob Lilly. Ben Davidson. Curly Culp. Buck Buchanon. Leonard Marshall. Bubba SMith. Deacon Jones. Merlin Olson. We never really went that way.
[ Edited by brodiebluebanaszak on Mar 30, 2014 at 10:17 AM ]
All part of the master plan I think, team considers the front 7 to be the foundation of the defense and naturally u progress from there. When u consider the age of some of the key players on the dline it explain why most of the recent draft focus has been there. But looking at how the team acquires db's, I think it all boils down to the cap, it's a position where they try to save money, and they feel that since the foundation is good it allows them to do it. Like most people tho I think this year they do draft a cb high, since they feel their foundation is taken care of, but WR to me is higher priority
  • thl408
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 5,007
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
well for one: Bowman was drafted by Singletary and Singetary was the one who pushed for him to get playing time over Takeo Spikes.
Also, are you saying we shouldn't have guys like Willis and Bowman on our team? Cause it sounds like you're saying that we emphasize having those guys on our team too much and it costs us on defense??

Plus, our corners last year did do pretty well in run support. Watching the film on the NFCCG Brock came up many times to take on Lynch on his stretch runs making several tackles and/or partial tackles on runs for little or no gain.

For me, the bigger concern in our secondary is consistent mental focus about assignments throughout the course of a game. I thought those hurt us more than anything in games last year.

From my recollection, Bowman didn't get more playing time till Fangio became DC. And... NO... I don't think we are over emphasizing the LB at the expense of the defensive backfield corps. Rather, I think we are under drafting the defensive secondary position. I LOVE Fangio's pressure schemes, but where he needs to develop his defense is in his coverage schemes, and it will help immensely if Baalke/Fangio expend high draft capital for much more physically gifted DB's that can do more than one thing. Example: Tank and Dial were redshirted, what if instead we drafted a CB that could have played last year? (I know hindsight is 20/20) If a DB can run support **AND** drop back and cover, and if a Safety can **run** support AND drop back and cover, it makes a QB's work at reading defenses much more difficult. A stronger secondary and a less talented linebacking corps does not mean a weaker run defense. Our first four super bowl defenses were some of the best run defenses we've ever had. I want him to continue to use the 3-4 blitzing scheme he uses, but in the post season, I want our secondary to be as talented as George's secondaries.

Not as easy thing to do since George Seifert had a great talent at developing defensive back, and I think Fangio has that same knack **but** its on the linebacker position. Again, the thing I am trying to get at is the difference between George's defenses which are 5-0 in super bowls, and Fangio's which is 0-1 (technically 0-3 if you count the other two losses as us being the actual runner up to the super bowl winner).

I think that's a very interesting take. I feel as though Fangio has a very elaborate arsenal of coverage calls that he uses. He forces the opposing QB to consider nearly every possible coverage call in the playbook, while ruling out nothing. I have seen the 49ers play cover2 zone, cover2 man, cover3, cover1, cover4. And he will pattern match to add to the complexity and variety. When an opposing QB plays the 49ers, nearly every possible coverage call is in play.
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,932
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Isn't that my point? We are usually back loaded on D, not front loaded. The big intimidating defenses usualy start with bullies up front.Joe Greene. Randy WHite. Bob Lilly. Ben Davidson. Curly Culp. Buck Buchanon. Leonard Marshall. Bubba SMith. Deacon Jones. Merlin Olson. We never really went that way.

Don't tell me you forget Fred Dean, Gary Jhonson, Loouie Kelcher, Dwain Board, and Michael Carter. What kind of a 49er fan are you!

In 1984, we were both strong at the D Line **AND** DB positions. Middle Linebacker was about the only position we were weakest at, on that defense. 1981, while we didn't have an all star defensive line - we did have some big horses up front in Archie Reese, Lawrence Pillars. Dwain Board was, I think a rookie, and eventually would be an 11 sack guy later. And our pass rusher - Fred Dean - was the Lawrence Taylor of his day.
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,932
Originally posted by thl408:
I think that's a very interesting take. I feel as though Fangio has a very elaborate arsenal of coverage calls that he uses. He forces the opposing QB to consider nearly every possible coverage call in the playbook, while ruling out nothing. I have seen the 49ers play cover2 zone, cover2 man, cover3, cover1, cover4. And he will pattern match to add to the complexity and variety. When an opposing QB plays the 49ers, nearly every possible coverage call is in play.

George could scheme, and so can Fangio, but where George failed is that he could not develop pass rushers the way Walsh could develop them. Walsh had Fred and then when Fred left, we got Haley. Point being - physical talent lets you get away with a lot of things. We just don't seem to emphasize physically gifted defensive backs in this defense. we have gotten Reid, but Fangio's not deviating from his days of the Dome Patrol. Bret Maxie is very much like Eric Reid. What I want is a solid all around back 4 like what we had in '81 and '84, and the only real way you are going to get something like that is through the draft. Getting those through free agency will break your cap.
  • thl408
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 5,007
Originally posted by Giedi:
Originally posted by thl408:
I think that's a very interesting take. I feel as though Fangio has a very elaborate arsenal of coverage calls that he uses. He forces the opposing QB to consider nearly every possible coverage call in the playbook, while ruling out nothing. I have seen the 49ers play cover2 zone, cover2 man, cover3, cover1, cover4. And he will pattern match to add to the complexity and variety. When an opposing QB plays the 49ers, nearly every possible coverage call is in play.

George could scheme, and so can Fangio, but where George failed is that he could not develop pass rushers the way Walsh could develop them. Walsh had Fred and then when Fred left, we got Haley. Point being - physical talent lets you get away with a lot of things. We just don't seem to emphasize physically gifted defensive backs in this defense. we have gotten Reid, but Fangio's not deviating from his days of the Dome Patrol. Bret Maxie is very much like Eric Reid. What I want is a solid all around back 4 like what we had in '81 and '84, and the only real way you are going to get something like that is through the draft. Getting those through free agency will break your cap.

Okay. You're talking about talent. I'm talking about scheme. I agree the 49ers could use some more talented CBs. I think you'll come away very satisfied this May after the draft.