If Brooks becomes the starting OLB, who sits?

Originally posted by SJniner7:
I am shocked that so many are crowning Brooks already. Didn't Parys finish strong in 2008, and boy was I fooled... ! Give Parys and Brooks both shots are rushing the QB and see how it works out...

to answer the question though, Parys would have to sit since Manny is good in coverage and containing the edge...

Wasn't haralson injured this year? Maybe that's why he looked so slow. I was never that impressed with Haralson last year anyway. A lot of his sacks were coverage sacks. He had one pass rush move, run as fast as he could around the tackle.

Brooks is quicker off the ball, and has better instincts, which is why he causes so many fumbles when he gets to the qb

The hate on manny is just ficking ridiculous
he is 5th in tackles (behind safties and ILBs)
1st in sacks
tied 2nd in forced fumble
and completely shut down runs to the rightside of the offense
and yet he still gets no love?

You say that he was "benched" on clear passing downs (4 wrs plus), yet he still leads the team in sacks. Where he would get sacks while offenses had a TE/FB/RB help with blocking?

I like Brooks and think he should start over Parys Haralson. But even his sacks where mostly in clear backfield situations. All he had to do was beat one guy and your done.

Also Lawson should have 7 sacks not 6.5. Willis hit the QB while Lawson had him wrapped and on his way down. But that isn't a big deal really, I'm just saying.

Might I also add that one of my predictions for the year was that Lawson would in fact lead the team in sacks, thank you very much

might I also go out on a limb and say Lawson will again lead the team in sacks next year

[ Edited by solidg2000 on Jan 16, 2010 at 19:00:46 ]

Originally posted by LeadFarmer:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
I am shocked that so many are crowning Brooks already. Didn't Parys finish strong in 2008, and boy was I fooled... ! Give Parys and Brooks both shots are rushing the QB and see how it works out...

to answer the question though, Parys would have to sit since Manny is good in coverage and containing the edge...

Wasn't haralson injured this year? Maybe that's why he looked so slow. I was never that impressed with Haralson last year anyway. A lot of his sacks were coverage sacks. He had one pass rush move, run as fast as he could around the tackle.

Brooks is quicker off the ball, and has better instincts, which is why he causes so many fumbles when he gets to the qb

that's because people here don't actually understand how to evaluate players. A lot of Haralson's sacks last year came in garbage time. He also didn't get consistent pressure on the QB, which is the most important thing a good pass rusher does.

Brooks should start. He's a legit pass rusher.

Originally posted by stevenking57:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by stevenking57:
Does anyone think that Haralson is stout/tough enough to play along side Willis?

No. But I think that Brooks could.

Manny(LOLB), Brooks (IKE), Bam Bam (Mike) and Harylson (ROLB)

I like TKO but we gotta look to the future at some point. That sack Brooks got goin OVER the Line untouched is a pretty solid indication that Brooks could probably fill the roll pretty well.

~Ceadder

of course Brooks could. he used to BE an ILB. they converted him because of his pure pass rush ability. lol his pass rushing skill is what this team needs most, so they arent going to convert him back after the booming success he had being switched to OLB.

its Haralson that loses his job, and its not even close. Lawson had a top ten 3-4 OLB type season.

i say we give Haralson camp/preseason and maybe about the first 3-5 games next year to take his job back, and if Brooks outplays him still, or he cant keep up, we make the move.

I'm wondering how many people actually pay attention to what's going on.

Converting Brooks back to ILB, when we have 1 superstar, one solid vet, and a TED in the wings (McKillop), why move Brooks from a position where we need depth and more talent to an area of strength??

Ummmm what's so hard to believe moving Brooks back to ILB and rotate him to the outside on certain downs?

Have some F'N imagination for cryin out loud. I'm not paying attention? Dude you're lost before you even start.

Look I get that we moved him to the outside. But Harylson isn't as bad as some of you suggest on the Right. And Manny is ALSO not as bad as others suggest on the Left. As a matter of fact they both contribute more than the stats will show. Manny pushing and helping to collapse the pocket around the ball carrier. He also keeps the Backs contained for Bam Bam to clean it up. Harylson does quite well in the same style and keeps the play contained for the most part. Screens are killing us but I think that Sing and Manusky are going to be working with them on this. The problem for the most part was that our secondary was not prepared to cover the screen as much as I would like to see. Hell even Brooks got caught a few times with it. That's what happens when you have a fast young Defense. They do get caught by surprise.

I mean hell look at what Alex was doing to other Defenses by changing up the snap count. Dockett was his wench for a good part of the 1st series in the Az game.

So my idea still stands. Get Brooks on the field even if it's ILB. Just so long as he knows that he's not expected to take it over. With the Line playing as stout as they are capable of, I do not see the issue to be as stupid as you make it out to be.

~Ceadder

Ceadder- Some guys don't get that on given downs, distance and/or game situations may mean that your BEST eleven guys may be different players or mean that they play in different positions. When Fred Dean played the "Cobra" defense, the offense never knew where he'd line up or even if he's rush at all. This created lots of confusion and sacks for Dean OR other Niners. One of my major complaints about how Andre Carter was used when we had him, was the coaches never moved him around on defense and the LT/RB/TE always knew where he'd be when the ball was snapped. Here we had a powerful, fast/quick, athletic DE, but he was a little under sized. His pass rushing role, IMO, was negated because the O could always account for him. Next season, would it be so crazy to have Lawson, Haralson, Willis, AND, Brooks all on the field when there is a high chance of a pass?

Nope not crazy at all. And yeah I agree with you about Carter. I never did understand why we weren't rotating him around the field.

And yes I get alot of my motivation from our Dean/Hacksaw days. I see what we have and for some reason I know how to exploit the opportunities that we have. Which is infuriating to me since the professionals don't do it. Pay me a quarter of what they get paid. Hell if it wasn't against the rules I would do it for free that's how much I love the team and the game.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by SFATeflonDon:

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
It's gotta be Haralson. Lawson is soooo much better playing the run and in coverage, he has a lot better closing speed.

This

true even tho he looks like an idiot sometimes taking horrible angles on the QB when he sheds his blocker he's better in more areas than harelson is

Originally posted by stevenking57:
Ceadder- Some guys don't get that on given downs, distance and/or game situations may mean that your BEST eleven guys may be different players or mean that they play in different positions. When Fred Dean played the "Cobra" defense, the offense never knew where he'd line up or even if he's rush at all. This created lots of confusion and sacks for Dean OR other Niners. One of my major complaints about how Andre Carter was used when we had him, was the coaches never moved him around on defense and the LT/RB/TE always knew where he'd be when the ball was snapped. Here we had a powerful, fast/quick, athletic DE, but he was a little under sized. His pass rushing role, IMO, was negated because the O could always account for him. Next season, would it be so crazy to have Lawson, Haralson, Willis, AND, Brooks all on the field when there is a high chance of a pass?

This has been my biggest concern from Manusky is that he plays a vanilla 3-4 making it very predictable for the o-line to account for the pass rushers. If Manusky is ready to take that next step, he'll learn to use these guys to create and attack mismatches better with ALL four LBers. He really has some great tools to work with. He just needs to take that next step in 2010!

They need to let Haralson & Brooks learn how to rush / play the other OLB position better, this way time can be split up nicely between them. It would be a shame to have to bench either of these LBs; we wouldn't really be gaining that much, if we do that. This is something that I'd like to see:

1st Down = Haralson, Brooks
2nd Down=Haralson, Lawson
3rd Down= Lawson, Brooks

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
They need to let Haralson & Brooks learn how to rush / play the other OLB position better, this way time can be split up nicely between them. It would be a shame to have to bench either of these LBs; we wouldn't really be gaining that much, if we do that. This is something that I'd like to see:

1st Down = Haralson, Brooks
2nd Down=Haralson, Lawson
3rd Down= Lawson, Brooks

Interesting! I like it. The only change "might be" if we can bring in a proven pass rushing FA or draft one high, have him opposite Brooks on 3rd downs and continue to match up Lawson on TE's, running plays, etc. with a focus on screen passes and covering RBs out of the backfield and a little more focus on coverage skills again. This rotation gives all three a rest too.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
They need to let Haralson & Brooks learn how to rush / play the other OLB position better, this way time can be split up nicely between them. It would be a shame to have to bench either of these LBs; we wouldn't really be gaining that much, if we do that. This is something that I'd like to see:

1st Down = Haralson, Brooks
2nd Down=Haralson, Lawson
3rd Down= Lawson, Brooks

Interesting! I like it. The only change "might be" if we can bring in a proven pass rushing FA or draft one high, have him opposite Brooks on 3rd downs and continue to match up Lawson on TE's, running plays, etc. with a focus on screen passes and covering RBs out of the backfield and a little more focus on coverage skills again. This rotation gives all three a rest too.

This sounds like a plan!

Originally posted by stevenking57:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
They need to let Haralson & Brooks learn how to rush / play the other OLB position better, this way time can be split up nicely between them. It would be a shame to have to bench either of these LBs; we wouldn't really be gaining that much, if we do that. This is something that I'd like to see:

1st Down = Haralson, Brooks
2nd Down=Haralson, Lawson
3rd Down= Lawson, Brooks

Interesting! I like it. The only change "might be" if we can bring in a proven pass rushing FA or draft one high, have him opposite Brooks on 3rd downs and continue to match up Lawson on TE's, running plays, etc. with a focus on screen passes and covering RBs out of the backfield and a little more focus on coverage skills again. This rotation gives all three a rest too.

This sounds like a plan!

why Haralson over Lawson? Haralson isn't near as good vs the run or in coverage, he was a huge disappointment this season.

3rd down, take out Spikes and let Lawson over the TE or H-back

i still contend that manny is good in coverage.
no he isnt d.revis on a RB man to man, but we are talking about an OLB here.
what OLB is? NOT MANY!!!!
when your OLBs drop into coverage, you're primarily hoping he clogs space,
and keeps the underneath throws from gaining big yards.
you'd hope for more, but so few OLBs do more than that in coverage.

one more thing, some people really need to stop mentioning where a player
was drafted when discussing their fit on the team.
it has no relevance to this conversation.
it is about getting the best 11 on the field. period.
it doesnt matter who was drafted where.
the subject of the thread is "IF brooks starts..."
so it's a matter of haralson or lawson.
who was drafted where has absolutely ZERO relevance.

fascinating. 21% of the voters on this poll didnt even bother to look at the stats.

go look at the numbers, and you will see that Lawson had a very good season. top 10 among his fellow 3-4 OLB overall.

Originally posted by kujon11:
haralson sits for sure. i still have nightmares of that guy getting burned by chris johnson on 4th down

He made a lot of D players look silly this year. He is still a solid player. We should be happy we have a rotation of 3 pass rushers on the edge who can make some plays.