Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by kem99:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Thanks. A perfect example is last year...apparently, only having two 1,000 yard receivers was not enough so HaRoman got a pass on their offensive philosophy and scheme. So Baalke, said "Two? Screw that...I'll get you FIVE!" And here we are with the same exact excuses...Crabtree now suddenly blows, VD can't catch, Johnson is our only reliable weapon, McDonald can't catch, nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat save for Lloyd once in a while, CK can't read defenses, OL sucks, etc. Come on. Enough! There are plenty of things a coaching staff can do to scheme away from these "known" weaknesses week-in, week-out.

Well, if "Crabtree now suddenly blows", "VD can't catch", "McDonald can't catch", "nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat", "CK can't read defenses" and the "OL sucks" all at the same time, no, there is not anything the coaching staff can do to "scheme away" from these "'known' weaknesses". You can scheme around a known weakness but not 5.

Even if you think Fangio did not have the perfect game plan, it is difficult to criticize when for the entirety of the season, he has been game planning around "known weaknesses", most of which are the result of injuries to starters. On a short week, how are you supposed to scheme around not having 3/4 of the best LB crew in the NFL, one starting CB and you nickel DB (which against the Broncos is essentially a starting player). And, that doesn't even count anticipating Culliver playing and expecting Brock to come back after the bye week, only to find out late in the week that Culliver is also out and Brock is going to have to play after being out since the first half of game 1.

You might be able to do something drastically different if you had a veteran defense with all of its pieces that you knew could make changes on short notice without having breakdowns and miscommunications. That wasn't last night with Borland making his first start, Wilhoite calling the defensive signals for the first time, the secondary shuffling to deal with the injuries to Culliver and Ward, its on the road on a short week and you're facing Manning who is historically good at his pre-snap reads and putting his offense in the right play, not to mention that, in contrast to the 49ers defense, he had all of his receivers healthy.

Given the injuries and suspensions, Fangio had "schemed" the 49ers defense to a top rating and despite the difficulties faced, the 49ers stopped the Broncos on the first possession of the 2nd half, the offense had the ball after scoring on 2 consecutive 80 yard drives (both of which could have been TD's if Boldin doesn't drop the walk in TD) and Kap playing well under the circumstances. If the take it and score again, its probably a different game. Instead, Kap makes a bad read and throw for the INT and it snowballs from there.

At some point, you can't scheme around everything. Players have to play well to win and you are more likely to get that when you best players are available. The 49ers have admirable depth, but there still is a significant drop-off when you have whole units of injured (egs. LB's, CB's, OL).

Oh I very much agree...I've gone on record by stating my support for Fangio...while also listing his shortcomings as well and this is one of those games that unfortunately, highlight his weakness. As to weaknesses on defense coming in, we didn't have that many coming in given we were ranking #2 like you noted against some high powered and efficient offenses (Dallas, Eagles, Chiefs, Rams with nothing to lose, Chicago and Cards vertical attack) and being w/o the big boys. If anyone had told you we'd be the #2 defense coming in WITH all our starters after 6 games, we'd take it...but we did it with a mix of starters, youth and growth players getting a chance. Well done! So yes, I have given him a ton of credit.

Where I don't is with his game plan in this game (that's all)...and the fact that he has 5 press corners and has never once used them in that capacity. He also made very odd personnel changes and choices this game that didn't add up (like Rogers for Cox last year in the NFCCG). We had a couple losses coming into this game with Willis and Ward but Borland ended up leading the team in tackles with 8 so he had a pretty decent game off the bench against a passing team and and the Bronco's game plan was centered more around attacking the secondary anyhow. Wilhoite had his usual solid outing as well. The front 7 looked like it always did until late when they started getting shredded on the ground well after the game was in hand. We talk about how it s/h been 21-17 at half but what about the first 21 points to even be in that position...or their defense playing prevent defense at the end of the first half which backfired and got us the only real TD? Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

There wasn't a whole lot to cover up or scheme around on the defensive side of things IMHO...just better game planning around a well known offense. I do feel we had the personnel to really challenge them we'll never know. And one thing is for certain now...we can never play that scheme against them again in the future!

Originally posted by thl408:

Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Dude zone with a weak 4 man rush is by far the worst defense you can play against Manning. That is how to defeat Peyton 101

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Let's forget about Manning for a minute. The 49ers run defense was giving up the following to the DEN RBs:

Name: carries/yards/avg per carry
Hillman: 14/74/5.3
Thompson: 6/30/5.0

In his post game presser, Manning mentioned how the run game's effectiveness opened up the passing game. Take Bow out, okay. Take Willis out too? Yikes.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Okay, then I would like to bold, underline, and even italicize this: getting to him

The 49ers were not getting to him. Did you want Fangio to start blitzing Manning continuously? As if no team has tried that before?

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Dude zone with a weak 4 man rush is by far the worst defense you can play against Manning. That is how to defeat Peyton 101

I agree. Not sure why you are preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by thl408:
Let's forget about Manning for a minute. The 49ers run defense was giving up the following to the DEN RBs:

Name: carries/yards/avg per carry
Hillman: 14/74/5.3
Thompson: 6/30/5.0

In his post game presser, Manning mentioned how the run game's effectiveness opened up the passing game. Take Bow out, okay. Take Willis out too? Yikes.

Hmm, it seemed to me that the short passing game opened up the running game inside esp. in the second half when the game was out of reach...couple long, big runs...one for a TD, another in short yardage. I think most were right up the gut too. They had a couple gashes up the gut here and there in the first half out of the pistol IIRC? But nothing we needed to hone in on extra. Borland and Wilhoite had 17 tackles between them so they were seeing some running plays.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Okay, then I would like to bold, underline, and even italicize this: getting to him

The 49ers were not getting to him. Did you want Fangio to start blitzing Manning continuously? As if no team has tried that before?

Oh God no! No way. That would be game suicide there. We haven't gotten to anyone under 3 seconds on every pass with just 5 defenders (not even with Aldon). No way. We may have had a chance to overload the RT who was struggling but that's about it with base personnel. BUT, we were getting their arounf 3.5-4+ seconds. So, by playing physical jam, tight coverage with their WR's with an eye on the QB, yes, I think that would have been just enough to disrupt the timing of the routes, force Manning to hesitate, pump, pull down and allow the front 5 to get there to the human statue.

PS: And I agree overall with you that it still may not have been enough to win last night but I do feel that if we kept Cox at LCB where he was on a roll, slid him inside to the slot ala Rogers when needed, moved Brock back to RCB and when Cox slid inside, had Cully/Johnson/Cook outside in mixing up between physical press and off coverage (pattern matching), yes, I think we had more than a fighting chance to pull this off or at least make a game out of it. And no, I do not think their WR's are better than our secondary physically. When they are allowed to run free and clean off the LOS, playing to their strengths, yes, then I am afraid. The only two WR's that are a mismatch straight up physically for us are the Chicago WR's and TE. We typically shut down the big "names" in the game.

Thought that so banged up in the front seven we would do some homework from previous games, (see the Manusky psycho D in the mid 2000's) that confused the hell out of the Colts and Manning. Dline and linebackers all standing changing postions all over the place.Offensive line hunched down with nobody to clearly block. Was shocked to see Fangio going in there trying to play straight up man ball with what he had. PM could have hung a 50 spot on us. May not have even been able to pull that off with what we had out there. Time to get guys back and make a surge in second half of season and let chips fall where they may.

With Aldon and now Lynch on the other side could have wreaked much more havok on the oline. Any other team getting off the bus for that game would have fared the same.We drew the short straw,seriously short handed against a monster of a team. It's their Lombardi to loose.They didn't even have linebacker Travathan back yet. Only other team that has a chance in the AFC is Indianapolis. Saw them live against the Titans. Their D is balling and Luck is/has become almost unstoppable on O.

Originally posted by thl408:
Let's forget about Manning for a minute. The 49ers run defense was giving up the following to the DEN RBs:

Name: carries/yards/avg per carry
Hillman: 14/74/5.3
Thompson: 6/30/5.0

In his post game presser, Manning mentioned how the run game's effectiveness opened up the passing game. Take Bow out, okay. Take Willis out too? Yikes.

that was a lie by peyton. the passing game is what killed us in the 1st half and totally opened us up for the run in the 2nd half.

Originally posted by socal1632:
With Aldon and now Lynch on the other side could have wreaked much more havok on the oline. Any other team getting off the bus for that game would have fared the same.We drew the short straw,seriously short handed against a monster of a team. It's their Lombardi to loose.They didn't even have linebacker Travathan back yet. Only other team that has a chance in the AFC is Indianapolis. Saw them live against the Titans. Their D is balling and Luck is/has become almost unstoppable on O.

I get people's thoughts on this but everyone is ignoring the fact that their offense is designed to get the ball out under 3 seconds and it relies heavily on scheme to do it. Even with Aldon back, Lynch, LT, the Minister of Defense and Bryant Young I don't see how we're getting there under 3 seconds. Do you?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Okay, then I would like to bold, underline, and even italicize this: getting to him

The 49ers were not getting to him. Did you want Fangio to start blitzing Manning continuously? As if no team has tried that before?

Oh God no! No way. That would be game suicide there. We haven't gotten to anyone under 3 seconds on every pass with just 5 defenders (not even with Aldon). No way. We may have had a chance to overload the RT who was struggling but that's about it with base personnel. BUT, we were getting their arounf 3.5-4+ seconds. So, by playing physical jam, tight coverage with their WR's with an eye on the QB, yes, I think that would have been just enough to disrupt the timing of the routes, force Manning to hesitate, pump, pull down and allow the front 5 to get there to the human statue.

What you are talking about in the bolded is zone coverage. A defender can't play tight coverage on the WR while having an eye on the QB. You can't have it both ways when playing man coverage. If a CB plays press man and has one eye on the QB, he's burnt toast right off the line of scrimmage. He needs to watch those WR's hips. You either play loose man coverage (off coverage) and have an eye on the QB, OR you put both your eyes on the WR in an attempt to play tight man coverage.

Well, we aren't going to change each other's mind. I think there was nothing the 49ers could have done that could have stopped Manning because the gap in talent was too large, not to mention the physicality of DThomas and JThomas. You think playing press would have yielded better results. The score was 42-17 so I'm not sure how much of a difference a different defensive strategy would have made.

No, you are absolutely correct. He has so many weapons and that Oline, only way to beat him is to limit them to literally 17 points per half and try to out score them.I think we can def hit that kind of mark or better with a 100 percent D. Kap was looking great in the first half minus the recievers dropping every meaningful pass. it was just the Manning coronation celebration from the word go. Like Reid said "the guy is his own coordinator out there."

It's on HarRofg to get this offense scoring, like how you cross that white line at the end of the field and get 6 points and stuff. 26th in the league in the redzone again?With so many weapons sorry, big fail for this O scheme.