Robert Saleh - Head Coach - Tennessee Titans

Lynch seemed ambivalent about Navorro's future.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

http://www.knbr.com/2017/06/27/john-lynch-names-a-handful-of-49ers-players-most-hes-excited-about/

16:35

Interesting comments from John Lynch about Bowman noting that in this scheme, he'll be dropping back a lot in zone coverage and then attacking and whether that fits his skills.

We've heard and read strong hints that the 49ers would be zone coverage based, at least on 1st/2nd downs. As a Hook zone defender, Bow will make his zone drop to take away the intermediate, then when the QB throws underneath, he needs to come up to make the tackle for minimal RAC. Typical duties of a Cover3 Hook zone defender.

Thanks thl... now it's got me wondering if he's capable of doing that. I'm not worried about diagnosing or him flying down hill but the ability to turn, flip, drop back, etc.

Originally posted by Heroism:

Lynch seemed ambivalent about Navorro's future.

Honestly, that was the tone I got too.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Honestly, that was the tone I got too.

Have you read or heard of who is taking snaps with Bowman at mike?

I saw Malcolm Smith primary at will in the clips I've seen on social media. Could he possibly be playing both spots?

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Honestly, that was the tone I got too.

Have you read or heard of who is taking snaps with Bowman at mike?

I saw Malcolm Smith primary at will in the clips I've seen on social media. Could he possibly be playing both spots?

Great question...I have not. But his praise for Malcolm and his athleticism plus if Foster is ready for the WILL, I can see why you asked that. I remember Saleh saying the MIKE is the one who can call the plays best. That would be Smith (right now). Lynch also mentioned Ray-Ray who's another LB that flies around like Foster and as a former S, clearly would have no problems dropping back in zone and flying up field to make tackles.

Damn...I don't want to think about it but we really should start to think about it.

I know the team across the Bay needs an inside linebacker. At least Bow would have a shot at a ring.

Originally posted by Heroism:

I know the team across the Bay needs an inside linebacker. At least Bow would have a shot at a ring.

Don't... don't you... don't you DARE go there!

Or the Chiefs, hah. I don't think he goes,but I wouldn't be shocked.

If our DL can get anywhere near the Super Bowl NYGiants D-Line...oh man!

I feel as though Saleh's defense is a transition back to an 'execution' type of defense. An execution type of defense doesn't do many things, but what it does do, it's practiced everyday so that the execution of the plays are at a high level. Smaller playbook, let the athletes play.
The other end of the spectrum is a 'scheming' type of defense. This type of defense tries to do many things, and tries to be capable of changing week to week depending on the opponent. Large volume playbook, playcalling/gameplanning from the defensive coordinator is highlighted on gamedays.

To put it in 49er terms, Fangio was an execution type of defense. He didn't do a whole lot, especially with his front7/box players, which were rather static. He ran his stunts, but in terms of hybrid fronts and blitz packages, there wasn't much. He mixed up his coverages, but it didn't seem opponent specific. He had a way of playcalling and it was mostly the same week to week.

Mangini is a good example of a scheming defense. I am confident in saying Manigni had the largest playbook out of Fangio, JoN, and I'll go ahead and throw Saleh in there without ever having seen a single Saleh defensive game, since he hasn't called one. Lots of variety in fronts, blitz packages, and coverages. Mangini's defense changed week to week. He wanted to keep the opposition off guard, "What will the 49ers do this week?". In theory that sounds like a great idea, but practically, it's very difficult to pull off because there is so much more to practice in terms of volume. Considering how little the players actually get to practice nowadays compared to pre-CBA, this world view on defense makes less sense.

Just to mention JoN. I think he was in the middle. He was always Quarters based, not many single high coverages. Where JoN's system fails is in how he expected his box players (front 7) to perform all the postsnap read and react gap exchanging - "if the DL does X, then LBs do Y". He had a lot of variety in his fronts while his playcalls weren't opponent specific.

Going to an execution type defense will require high end athletes and that's exactly what the 49ers currently have on defense. There's a lot of Day 1 and 2 picks on the roster. I think Saleh is going to turn them loose and let them use their athletic ability instead of having them think too much about their assignments. No NFL scheme is simple. There are audibles and adjustments to make in all phases, but compared to what the 49ers were doing with Mangini/JoN, Saleh's defense will most likely be easier to grasp in terms of volume of assignments and playcalls.

Originally posted by thl408:
I feel as though Saleh's defense is a transition back to an 'execution' type of defense. An execution type of defense doesn't do many things, but what it does do, it's practiced everyday so that the execution of the plays are at a high level. Smaller playbook, let the athletes play.
The other end of the spectrum is a 'scheming' type of defense. This type of defense tries to do many things, and tries to be capable of changing week to week depending on the opponent. Large volume playbook, playcalling/gameplanning from the defensive coordinator is highlighted on gamedays.

To put it in 49er terms, Fangio was an execution type of defense. He didn't do a whole lot, especially with his front7/box players, which were rather static. He ran his stunts, but in terms of hybrid fronts and blitz packages, there wasn't much. He mixed up his coverages, but it didn't seem opponent specific. He had a way of playcalling and it was mostly the same week to week.

Mangini is a good example of a scheming defense. I am confident in saying Manigni had the largest playbook out of Fangio, JoN, and I'll go ahead and throw Saleh in there without ever having seen a single Saleh defensive game, since he hasn't called one. Lots of variety in fronts, blitz packages, and coverages. Mangini's defense changed week to week. He wanted to keep the opposition off guard, "What will the 49ers do this week?". In theory that sounds like a great idea, but practically, it's very difficult to pull off because there is so much more to practice in terms of volume. Considering how little the players actually get to practice nowadays compared to pre-CBA, this world view on defense makes less sense.

Just to mention JoN. I think he was in the middle. He was always Quarters based, not many single high coverages. Where JoN's system fails is in how he expected his box players (front 7) to perform all the postsnap read and react gap exchanging - "if the DL does X, then LBs do Y". He had a lot of variety in his fronts while his playcalls weren't opponent specific.

Going to an execution type defense will require high end athletes and that's exactly what the 49ers currently have on defense. There's a lot of Day 1 and 2 picks on the roster. I think Saleh is going to turn them loose and let them use their athletic ability instead of having them think too much about their assignments. No NFL scheme is simple. There are audibles and adjustments to make in all phases, but compared to what the 49ers were doing with Mangini/JoN, Saleh's defense will most likely be easier to grasp in terms of volume of assignments and playcalls.

What about Fangio's pattern-matching? is that considered to be apart of 'execution' type defense?

Originally posted by defenderDX:
What about Fangio's pattern-matching? is that considered to be apart of 'execution' type defense?

My definition of an "Execution" type defense is more so a philosophy, not so much a certain concept like pattern matching. Fangio pattern matched in every single game. That was a part of their identity as a defense. I'll go back to Mangini as a way to contrast. Mangini had some games where he was man coverage dominant and many games where he was zone dominant. There were games where a Mangini defense played a lot of 2 deep coverages, and some games where played single high safety. It changed week to week. Fangio did not change week to week. That's why I classified Fangio's D as an execution type defense.

Another example is SEA, an execution type defense. Cover3 and Cover1, that's what an offense will see when they play SEA. Offenses know what's coming, go ahead and try to move the ball.

Thanks for that post Thl! i do hope they turn the athletes free to be aggressive. It might mean some mistakes but in the long run it will be best, particularly with this young group.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
What about Fangio's pattern-matching? is that considered to be apart of 'execution' type defense?

My definition of an "Execution" type defense is more so a philosophy, not so much a certain concept like pattern matching. Fangio pattern matched in every single game. That was a part of their identity as a defense. I'll go back to Mangini as a way to contrast. Mangini had some games where he was man coverage dominant and many games where he was zone dominant. There were games where a Mangini defense played a lot of 2 deep coverages, and some games where played single high safety. It changed week to week. Fangio did not change week to week. That's why I classified Fangio's D as an execution type defense.

Another example is SEA, an execution type defense. Cover3 and Cover1, that's what an offense will see when they play SEA. Offenses know what's coming, go ahead and try to move the ball.

Allows a defense to play downhill. Offense won't be confused very much but us (under Fangio) as does SEA forced offenses to be patient. Simple defense when executed well does not allow for as many big plays whereas Mangini's-scheme heavy defense can quickly get exposed if the correct scheme isn't being used that week. There were some weeks under Mangini and JoN where our defense looked worse than a High School defense with players out of position which result in missed tackles.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Thanks for that post Thl! i do hope they turn the athletes free to be aggressive. It might mean some mistakes but in the long run it will be best, particularly with this young group.

I forget, it was either Brent Jones or Steve Young that was on local radio saying something to the effect of, "Smart players go on offense. Everyone else goes on defense." In this day and age where roster turnover is frequent and field practice time is limited, it makes sense to have those freak athletes thinking less.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
What about Fangio's pattern-matching? is that considered to be apart of 'execution' type defense?

My definition of an "Execution" type defense is more so a philosophy, not so much a certain concept like pattern matching. Fangio pattern matched in every single game. That was a part of their identity as a defense. I'll go back to Mangini as a way to contrast. Mangini had some games where he was man coverage dominant and many games where he was zone dominant. There were games where a Mangini defense played a lot of 2 deep coverages, and some games where played single high safety. It changed week to week. Fangio did not change week to week. That's why I classified Fangio's D as an execution type defense.

Another example is SEA, an execution type defense. Cover3 and Cover1, that's what an offense will see when they play SEA. Offenses know what's coming, go ahead and try to move the ball.

Also, to piggy back on that. It's not to say that Fangio's defense didn't have complexity to it, it just wasn't unnecessarily complex. While he played a lot of 3 deep(usually a variant of either cover 3 or cover 6) the underneath coverage was rather complex. That's the "pattern matching" as mentioned. While, on paper, it can seem really simple, cover 3 or 6 almost all the time, it had a lot of layers to it that allowed it to adapt to the play at hand. Again, it comes down to execution. Instead of trying to have to keep straight if the cover 3 is spot drop, man-in-zone drop, or one of many pattern-match calls as well as the same through a littany of cover 1,2,4,and 6 as well as blitz packages and fire zones, the defense is focused on the pattern-match cover 3 or 6.

The flexibility offered by the pattern-match 3 "liz", "mable"(the 2 most common) or a couple others makes it really tough on a defense to use many of the concepts that would normally defeat it.

The benefit is, you don't have to worry about so many different alignments. So, it reduces the amount of pre-snap information having to be processed and adjusted to. Instead of players thinking of 10 steps in 8 seconds they're only thinking of the personnel, alignment and then recalling what they've seen on film. Not, seeing the personnel and alignment and now you have d-lineman shifting, secondary shifting, turning to communicate, LB's trying to make calls and then do it all again if the offense shifts and remembering which zone you have and if you pattern-match or not and which gap you cover.

Like Thl noted, they get really good at executing it because you only have a few very complex plays. So, you master that defense and all its complexity.

With Saleh's defense, if it's like SEA's defense is going to focus on keeping everything in front of players and thus allowing them to attack downhill and making solid tackles with punishment. They'll give you 3 and 4 yard routes all day long, but you're going to have to take those all day long and try and run the ball against an 8 man front all day long. It's mostly a cover 3 "mable" pattern match defense. That means that the corner on the weak-side side will be in a press-man situation and the rest of the team in a cover 3-zone with an outside emphasis from the SS dropping into coverage and the "SAM" looking to jump the first underneath out breaking route. This protects against floods and speedo concepts that can usually eat up a cover 3 zone. The SS will read an outside flow for any intermediate route and squeaze inside routes to aid the M and FS who have those inside routes. The W then looks to cover the outside breaking routes in a man-in-zone fashion, transitioning to full man on any vertical outside route(think of a wheel route). The M has help on any in-breaking routes from the same receiver as the FS will then drive on any possible intermediate routes that threaten his zone as well(think mesh or drive concepts).

This also requires your deep 1/3 corner to look to cover post routes from the strong-side receiver that could threaten your deep middle in case of a FS driving on a "drive" concept(we did this against SEA last year and old BG whiffed the throw).

Because of the "Mable" call and the shift of the SS to an outside hook/curl read area, he then is able to cover any vertical trail concepts that are run off of a deep post.

All this gives this defense a lot of layers and complexity and make it very hard to defeat. The kicker is, you have to have high quality personnel to run this defense. They have to be able to see and react to this things well and having extra length helps as it will cut down the windows that will open up. Plus a lot of speed helps too.

This defense, like any zone, is susceptible to longer developing concepts. The reason Seattle is so good is that they have a nasty D-line that makes it near impossible to execute longer developing plays with any sort of consistency, no matter the situation.