Is Fangio really a better option than Manusky?

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
The way I see it, Fangio is a vet at the 3-4. There's nothing Manusky was doing with our team that Fangio don't know how to do himself. Fangio also add years of experience and Harbaugh have trust in Vic. No brainer.

Experience does not equate to success. In Fangio's case, more experience meant a worse overall ranking IN ALL 3 OF HIS PREVIOUS DC JOBS. He took top 15 overall defenses and took them to the bottom or one step above the bottom:

Carolina
1995: 7th
1996: 10th
1997: 15th
1998: 30th (last in the league)

Indianapolis
1999: 15th
2000: 21st
2001: 29th

Houston
2002: 16th
2003: 31st
2004: 23rd
2005: 31st

Lots of people talk about lack of talent on his previous teams. I think that is bullchit! He had at least 3 years on each team to adjust his roster via FA, trade, draft, etc. yet he was never able to fix them. Manusky's defenses were not bad and at least were consistent:

Overall Defense the last 6 years:

2010: 13th overall
2009: 15th overall
2008: 13th overall
2007: 25th overall (still under Nolan regime)

The first year he took over, our defense improved to essentially twice as good according to rankings. Bottom line is we dont know much about how Fangio will do if he comes, but I would be worried. Based on EXPERIENCE, our defense should go to chits here in a year or two.

Yeah, Jimmy Raye had a ton of "experience" too but that doesn't mean he fits the NFL today. At this juncture, Fangio "may" fit what is best for this team and what the top NFL defenses scheme towards in todays game. Manusky clearly does not and may be best suited for the college ranks or an NFL team with a tremendous offense that can score quickly. This casue for concern has been posted and reposted in this thread from the beginning and is a very valid concern that we all share and one, I'm sure, has been brought to his attention. But in this role, make no mistake about it, he has to come here with a "vision" much like Harbaugh and we will draft, sign our own and bring in FA's who fit that vision much like a Capers, Steelers, San Diego and Baltimore defensive team. Let's hope for the best in scouting players who fit our system and who we can plug in at any time and not miss a beat (ala the WCO or San Diego 3-4 defense). Having the right "system" is critical towards success in the NFL.

How many times have we seen "crappy players" on our team go to other systems and perform very well...

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
The way I see it, Fangio is a vet at the 3-4. There's nothing Manusky was doing with our team that Fangio don't know how to do himself. Fangio also add years of experience and Harbaugh have trust in Vic. No brainer.

Experience does not equate to success. In Fangio's case, more experience meant a worse overall ranking IN ALL 3 OF HIS PREVIOUS DC JOBS. He took top 15 overall defenses and took them to the bottom or one step above the bottom:

Carolina
1995: 7th
1996: 10th
1997: 15th
1998: 30th (last in the league)

Indianapolis
1999: 15th
2000: 21st
2001: 29th

Houston
2002: 16th
2003: 31st
2004: 23rd
2005: 31st

Lots of people talk about lack of talent on his previous teams. I think that is bullchit! He had at least 3 years on each team to adjust his roster via FA, trade, draft, etc. yet he was never able to fix them. Manusky's defenses were not bad and at least were consistent:

Overall Defense the last 6 years:

2010: 13th overall
2009: 15th overall
2008: 13th overall
2007: 25th overall (still under Nolan regime)

The first year he took over, our defense improved to essentially twice as good according to rankings. Bottom line is we dont know much about how Fangio will do if he comes, but I would be worried. Based on EXPERIENCE, our defense should go to chits here in a year or two.

There have been reasons for this phenomena. It's called poor talent. If you go and break down the defenses for each of his seasons, you can see that his sacks and QB pressures remained consistent for the most part. His run defenses have been horrid, bottom of barrel most years and that's where most of the decline lies.

There is NO doubt that he's very competent in devising ways to get to the QB, the one thing we have been missing under Manusky with much better talent supposedly.

He will now have more talented pieces to play with especially with a new pass rusher to succeed Manny, a new LDE to succeed Ice and a new CB to succeed Clements. Baalke gets him those three ingredients, look out for an awesome dish of "Kick Ass" next season.

Bon Appetit!

Originally posted by Wodwo:


No more "bend, but don't break". No more cover four shell.

This defense is absolutely geared towards stopping the run above all else and it's hurt us. Blame the players if you want, but a good coach will scheme to their strengths and teach them discipline.

This is what captured my attention watching Stanford... discipline. The players appeared to be in the correct positions to contain the offense. I think that factors more into my preference for Fangio than his attacking style.

Discipline first. Attacking second. Without the first, the second will fail.

Our defense last season lacked discipline at every level. Well, the defensive line was generally good... but other than that, there were containment breakdowns all over the field. We even managed to regress in our ability to tackle. Hell, I saw Willis get run over for the first time in his career.

There are no excuses for a veteran defense that has been together in the same scheme this long.

It's time to try something new.

This is an EXCELLENT point...it's sort of like the old Pirelli tires commercials, "Power is NOTHING w/o control!" And in that lies my arguments against Manusky...having the proper 3-4 vision/scheme for today's NFL, not playing to his players individual strengths or obtaining players that match his vision and discipline (teaching the players proper fundamentals in team tackling, proper tackling techniques, pass rushing skills, angles, etc.). It shouldn't take an NFL safety 3-to-4 years to understand his defense (see Seattle) and then when he does (ala Goldson) he's only average at best.

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:
I don't understand why people are so in love with Manusky. We have been shredded by opponents passing games and give the opposing Qbs 45 years to throw the ball...This is by far a championship defense.

I have no issue with letting Manusky go....I have an issue with replacing him with a guy who has an AWFUL track record.

Originally posted by ninertico:

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
The way I see it, Fangio is a vet at the 3-4. There's nothing Manusky was doing with our team that Fangio don't know how to do himself. Fangio also add years of experience and Harbaugh have trust in Vic. No brainer.

Experience does not equate to success. In Fangio's case, more experience meant a worse overall ranking IN ALL 3 OF HIS PREVIOUS DC JOBS. He took top 15 overall defenses and took them to the bottom or one step above the bottom:

Carolina
1995: 7th
1996: 10th
1997: 15th
1998: 30th (last in the league)

Indianapolis
1999: 15th
2000: 21st
2001: 29th

Houston
2002: 16th
2003: 31st
2004: 23rd
2005: 31st

Lots of people talk about lack of talent on his previous teams. I think that is bullchit! He had at least 3 years on each team to adjust his roster via FA, trade, draft, etc. yet he was never able to fix them. Manusky's defenses were not bad and at least were consistent:

Overall Defense the last 6 years:

2010: 13th overall
2009: 15th overall
2008: 13th overall
2007: 25th overall (still under Nolan regime)

The first year he took over, our defense improved to essentially twice as good according to rankings. Bottom line is we dont know much about how Fangio will do if he comes, but I would be worried. Based on EXPERIENCE, our defense should go to chits here in a year or two.

There have been reasons for this phenomena. It's called poor talent. If you go and break down the defenses for each of his seasons, you can see that his sacks and QB pressures remained consistent for the most part. His run defenses have been horrid, bottom of barrel most years and that's where most of the decline lies.

There is NO doubt that he's very competent in devising ways to get to the QB, the one thing we have been missing under Manusky with much better talent supposedly.

He will now have more talented pieces to play with especially with a new pass rusher to succeed Manny, a new LDE to succeed Ice and a new CB to succeed Clements. Baalke gets him those three ingredients, look out for an awesome dish of "Kick Ass" next season.

Bon Appetit!

I'm trying to keep an open mind and being optimistic. Hopefully I'm proven wrong. Oh, and I'm ready for 2011!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
The way I see it, Fangio is a vet at the 3-4. There's nothing Manusky was doing with our team that Fangio don't know how to do himself. Fangio also add years of experience and Harbaugh have trust in Vic. No brainer.

Experience does not equate to success. In Fangio's case, more experience meant a worse overall ranking IN ALL 3 OF HIS PREVIOUS DC JOBS. He took top 15 overall defenses and took them to the bottom or one step above the bottom:

Carolina
1995: 7th
1996: 10th
1997: 15th
1998: 30th (last in the league)

Indianapolis
1999: 15th
2000: 21st
2001: 29th

Houston
2002: 16th
2003: 31st
2004: 23rd
2005: 31st

Lots of people talk about lack of talent on his previous teams. I think that is bullchit! He had at least 3 years on each team to adjust his roster via FA, trade, draft, etc. yet he was never able to fix them. Manusky's defenses were not bad and at least were consistent:

Overall Defense the last 6 years:

2010: 13th overall
2009: 15th overall
2008: 13th overall
2007: 25th overall (still under Nolan regime)

The first year he took over, our defense improved to essentially twice as good according to rankings. Bottom line is we dont know much about how Fangio will do if he comes, but I would be worried. Based on EXPERIENCE, our defense should go to chits here in a year or two.

Yeah, Jimmy Raye had a ton of "experience" too but that doesn't mean he fits the NFL today. At this juncture, Fangio "may" fit what is best for this team and what the top NFL defenses scheme towards in todays game. Manusky clearly does not and may be best suited for the college ranks or an NFL team with a tremendous offense that can score quickly. This casue for concern has been posted and reposted in this thread from the beginning and is a very valid concern that we all share and one, I'm sure, has been brought to his attention. But in this role, make no mistake about it, he has to come here with a "vision" much like Harbaugh and we will draft, sign our own and bring in FA's who fit that vision much like a Capers, Steelers, San Diego and Baltimore defensive team. Let's hope for the best in scouting players who fit our system and who we can plug in at any time and not miss a beat (ala the WCO or San Diego 3-4 defense). Having the right "system" is critical towards success in the NFL.

How many times have we seen "crappy players" on our team go to other systems and perform very well...

I agree. If he comes to be our D-Coordinator, which is looking more and more likely everyday, everyone must buy into "the vision" and Baalke needs to get him the players that he asks for. It may not be who we as fans or even Baalke wants in some cases, but give him the best chance to succeed.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SandSlingin49er:
SOmeone just posted ea. teams blitz count.............

THe great Manusky had 1.6 all out blitz's a game (thats sending more than 6) and the saints led the NFL..... I think its time for change

Thank you! The average yards per game rankings during Manusky's tenure (b/c it's over now) is as deceptive as his 6th ranked defense against the run (but 17th in points allowed). Ppl can blame the offense all they want but in the grand scheme of things, this was a defense designed to stop the run first and played conservative to avoid the big play. As a result, we gave up countless 99 yard-like drives in 10+ minutes all season. We bent and broke but did it very slowly as teams exploited the underneath zones and took what we gave them methodically while allowing QB's all day to find the open, underneath RB's, WR's and TE's. At the end of the day we didn't give up a ton of yards and our run defense looked way better then it actually was. We gave up a lot of points (broke) and b/c the defense couldn't get off the field, the offense had fewer opportunities to get the ball back and gain any rhythm itself. We saw this ALL year long. Remember, there were only two teams that game-planned to exploit our front 7 on the ground (KC & Tampa) and both owned us in this matter; even Willis was owned. The rest of the teams easily exploited our underneath soft defense where even our OLB's were constantly dropping back in coverage.

TOP for the offense and defense was almost identical b/c as bad as the offense was at maintaining drives, the defense was equally bad at getting off the field on 3rd downs or creating TO's. Period.

Manusky is an intelligent man and played to the stats. We all saw how much more effective our secondary was (Goldson, Harris, Bly, Spencer, Clements, etc.) when Manusky schemed a team-pass rushing concept and even the TO's went up big time. This year, he played to get out of SF IMHO. In his long tenure here he had every opportunity to build a dominant defense; something other DC's did in just one or two seasons. For God's sakes, look at San Diego's 3-4, #1 in the NFL with essentially zero players left over from the "Lights Out!" days.

There is no question that this is by FAR, the most vanilla 3-4 defense of the entire NFL, the Nolan or Singletary or Raye-version of defense.

For a veteran defense who have had the same personnel for 5 years now under the same defense (including added pass rushers to the mix ala Brooks/LaBoy), this team continued to be exposed, outcoached, outschemed, zero half-time adjustments, destroyed easily when the game was on the line, constant crucial penalties, bone-headed play after bone-headed play, undisciplined, players quitting, no players developing at all (only regressing), etc.

In 2010, there were NO excuses for the defense (they failed) and any fan who watched every game could admit to that without hesitation. At the end of the day, given the offense had 4 QB changes, 2 OC changes, 2 philosophy changes, 2 rookies starting along the o-line, it's center and LT on IR, its #1 RB on IR, we'd expect what the offense delivered, a lower 1/3 of the league ranking (23rd). But the defense? No excuses!

It's time for a change, w/o question. As long as the new DC comes in with the same "attack" mentality to match Harbaugh and his offensive philosophy, that alone will weed out many of our one-dimensional players on defense and start a shift towards a defense to match today's NFL that is ALWAYS #1 or #2 in the NFL every year.

We should always be striving for that and become the Niners of old...top 5 ranking in offense AND defense!

No more "bend, but don't break". No more cover four shell.

This defense is absolutely geared towards stopping the run above all else and it's hurt us. Blame the players if you want, but a good coach will scheme to their strengths and teach them discipline.

This is what captured my attention watching Stanford... discipline. The players appeared to be in the correct positions to contain the offense. I think that factors more into my preference for Fangio than his attacking style.

Discipline first. Attacking second. Without the first, the second will fail.

Our defense last season lacked discipline at every level. Well, the defensive line was generally good... but other than that, there were containment breakdowns all over the field. We even managed to regress in our ability to tackle. Hell, I saw Willis get run over for the first time in his career.

There are no excuses for a veteran defense that has been together in the same scheme this long.

It's time to try something new.

I don't get this, it seems like it is a circular argument, or point, or whatever you want to call it, but it does seem circular, or contradicting, in some form:

"This defense is absolutely geared towards stopping the run above all else and it's hurt us. Blame the players if you want, but a good coach will scheme to their strengths and teach them discipline."

Heres why I don't get it.......

Isn't this exactly what Manusky has been doing (schemeing to their strengths, ie..."talent is strong at defensing the run" "scheme that strength"). Or is it we have a roster whose talent strength is defending then pass? If so, how come we are discussing drafting talent to defense the pass?

Here's the deal, and I am speaking from what I would do,which ain;t much because I am not expert, like Manausky or any other DC. I would find out my strengths and weakness and I would scheme my strengths. For us, I can clearly see that my talent is strong at defensing the run, and weak in the pass. Iwould then think: "OK, I am going to try to take away their run because that is my best starting point, it's a position of strength for us, and that is where I am going to start. If I do that, maybe it will force them into passing situations that are favorable for us, maybe it will help our position of weakness. I can try and force them to pass, but In do not have the talent to force them into my strong point, I don't have the talent to force them to run and play to my strength."

In other word's, if your talent level iis such that defensing the pass is poor, there is no way in hell you will EVER be able to force them into your position of strength (running situations) by scheming from your position of weakness, no matter how much scheme, wish, hope or any other. They will simply play the game to force YOU into playing the pass, and they will succeed.

It's basic law, you CANNOT force someone into your position of strength if you are playing from your position of weakness. They will simply keep you right there playing from that position to their delight. (Unless of course, you can dominate your opponent to beat hell, meaning... "they really suck").

I am telling you guys, you are really hammering on Manusky when essentially all he has done is play to our strengths (well) and try and cover our weakness. When it comes to defensing the pass, our basic package front 7 is not that of a 34, it's that of 22...Jsmith, Franklin, Willis and Spikes. Soaps, Haralson, Lawson are incapable of defensing the pass worth a s**t.

You guys may want to think about that. How soon we forget that over the last couple of years all of them have been pushed to get better at defensing the pass (pressuring the QB), and none of them have progressed one single f**king bit. I have about had enough of the Haralscuses, Mannyscuses, and the Soapscuses. Either live with the fact that those talents are needing upgraded to positions of strength in the pass defense, or live with the fact that they all excel in the run and this defense will be schemed to play off of that strength. You guys want both, you guys want your cake and want to eat it to. Not going to happen my friend, unless you are the exception and not the rule.... you don't get your cake and get to eat too, not at this level of football.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:
There is a reason every team wants Manusky now. He is a very good DC. Look at where Fangio's defenses were ranked in his first year compared to his last year with NFL teams. They always have gotten worse. Manusky has made this defense way better than it was when he got it. For some reason people don't like Manusky and just want Fangio because he's not Manusky.

I challenge you or anyone else to name some players from the defenses that Vic Fangio coached instead of just judging him base on a stat line.

Someone pointed out before that this team drafted Lawson, Bowman, Balmer, Willis, brought in Clements, Spikes, Harris, Lewis, Smith, etc. Manusky has had talent to work with. With Fangio I remember Sam Smills and Kevin Greene from those Panthers teams, and we signed Greene in 97. With the Colts, I can't remember anybody. With the Texans, I remember they drafted the great Travis Johnson .

With the talent we have now, more than anything Fangio has ever had at the pro level, we should be a better team and should get more pressure. Good luck Greg Manusky.

First of all, with the talent he had, his teams got worse. Regardless of how talented they were, they got worse from when he got there to when he left. And you gave reasons to think those defenses being bad was not his fault, but do you have any reason to think he will be a better coordinator than Manusky. He has been coaching for a very long time and he has not once ever coached a defense better than Manusky's defenses over the last 3 years. There are no positives on his resume`, just reasons to think that the negatives aren't completely his fault.

I am not acting as if this is no brainer higher. My reason for backing Fangio is the attacking style I saw him use at Stanford. Based on the talent we have now, I think he would do a better job than Manusky's bend, but don't break style. The fact that Fangio's defenses regressed consistently is alarming, but again, as I said, outside of Sam Mills and Kevin Greene, who can you name from those defenses?

Manusky's defenses should be better statistically. He has had All-Pros, pro-bowlers, and millions of dollars invested into that side of the ball. It's not even a fair comparison. We've reached our peak with what we can do with Manusky's defense, unless we get another blue-chipper like Patrick Willis. With the philosopy of Fangio, we should expect sacks numbers to go up, more QBs having to flee the pocket, instead of having 6+ seconds to throw, and our DBs should look a lot better.

We have Willis and Smith as the only elite players on out defense, and while those guys are incredible players, neither play any of the most important positions: NT, OLB, and CB. NT is the only one that we've had good talent at. The other two, we just haven't had the personnel to be effective. Fangio can't help that.

I'm not so sure he is. But I expect that Harbaugh would want someone that he is familiar with as well and I'm fine with that.

The defense has never been the problem. The offense constantly put our D in HORRID positions -- especially turning the TO fest we had in the first 1/3 of the season.

There's a reason why Manusky is getting all of this interest...NFL people understand how s**tty our offense was and yet our D was still above average. A lot of that credit goes to Manusky.

Originally posted by Envy:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by Envy:

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Draftology:
There is a reason every team wants Manusky now. He is a very good DC. Look at where Fangio's defenses were ranked in his first year compared to his last year with NFL teams. They always have gotten worse. Manusky has made this defense way better than it was when he got it. For some reason people don't like Manusky and just want Fangio because he's not Manusky.

I challenge you or anyone else to name some players from the defenses that Vic Fangio coached instead of just judging him base on a stat line.

Someone pointed out before that this team drafted Lawson, Bowman, Balmer, Willis, brought in Clements, Spikes, Harris, Lewis, Smith, etc. Manusky has had talent to work with. With Fangio I remember Sam Smills and Kevin Greene from those Panthers teams, and we signed Greene in 97. With the Colts, I can't remember anybody. With the Texans, I remember they drafted the great Travis Johnson .

With the talent we have now, more than anything Fangio has ever had at the pro level, we should be a better team and should get more pressure. Good luck Greg Manusky.

First of all, with the talent he had, his teams got worse. Regardless of how talented they were, they got worse from when he got there to when he left. And you gave reasons to think those defenses being bad was not his fault, but do you have any reason to think he will be a better coordinator than Manusky. He has been coaching for a very long time and he has not once ever coached a defense better than Manusky's defenses over the last 3 years. There are no positives on his resume`, just reasons to think that the negatives aren't completely his fault.

Hmmm really? Because I remember some pretty good linebackers that played to the Saints during his time there as LB coach. And just to back it up...

* OLB Rickey Jackson (#57), 6 Pro Bowl Selections (1983, 84, 85, 86, 92, 93) (New Orleans Saints Hall of Fame, Pro Football Hall of Fame)[1]
* MLB Sam Mills (#51), 5 Pro Bowl Selections (1987, 88, 91, 92, 96)[2]
* MLB Vaughan Johnson (#53), 4 Pro Bowl Selections (1989, 90, 91, 92)[3]
* OLB Pat Swilling (#56), 5 Pro Bowl Selections (1989, 90, 91, 92, 93) (First Team All-Pro 91, 92)[4]

That's 4 Pro-Bowl LBs fomr the SAME Team. I'd like a bit of that.

But you are right. If we base our searching on numbers alone then he has some holes but I'm glad we're looking to move on from Manusky. His play calling is awful and he has done net f**k all to improve pass defense.

Dude. Vance Singletary was our linebackers coach. Doesn't mean he's the reason Pat and TKO are sick. I just think for a defense that never had a lock down corner or a pass rusher, we were pretty damn good. He's obviously highly touted around the league if he's interviewed for a head coaching job and like four coordinator jobs before he is even fired.

Good point. But I don;t believe Fangio has any bloodties to Jim Mora Snr. So I'm kind of thinking if he wasn't improving them then they he wouldn't have kept him.

I understand why people want to keep Manusky. I do. Last season it looked like we were on course for to be a consistent Top 10 defence but it didn't happen. This year was a shambles. Now it is complete conjecture as to how much Manusky was governed by Sing but I'm thinking if there was one coach not getting the Mike's treatment it would have been Manusky.

He may have had a hard time lobbying for players but the ones he had he rarely used effectively.

I would be completely on board with bringing in Fangio as a position coach, but the regression of all his defenses scares me, and even with how horrible our defense was in the passing game, I think we were still ranked 15th last season, with no pass rusher or shut down CB

it really doesn't matter who the DC is if we don't get more depth at ILB, a passrusher, a CB and a Safety.

Originally posted by Blitz:
"This defense is absolutely geared towards stopping the run above all else and it's hurt us. Blame the players if you want, but a good coach will scheme to their strengths and teach them discipline."

Hey Blitz, thanks for covering the other side of the coin/perspective.

I personally feel Manusky did just the opposite in this case and actually played to the team's waeknesses for the most part.

Let's look at each player here:
Franklin - one-dimensional A-gap NT (thanks to the d-line coach in recognizing this as well as Sopoaga at DE). However, in a 3-4 you need a TWO gap NT who can completely occupy the middle in the running game AND collapse the pocket to that the QB can not step up in it all day. This is not Manusky's fault but hey, we had YEARS to find a proper NT and passed on it every year
Sopoaga - clearly a two-gap LDE and a very good one at that. There was only a couple cases where I actually saw him rush the QB but when he did, he got a sack and he looked very quick for a 330 pound DE. I believe this is on Manusky b/c he was always occupying a tackle and covering both gaps in run support. He held the point. But I rarely saw him push forward and collapse the right side of the o-line so I think this was "scheme."
Smith - would be ideally utilized in a 4-3 or a 3-4 that tried to isolate him on one-on-one blocking so he could effectively use his natural bull rush and pass rush skills. Instead, he was asked to occupy two blockers b/ cof his skill set and STILL was able to bull rush and lead the team in sacks. This is poor scheme however.
Lawson - this is a man who has demonstrated zero pass rushing skills in 5 years inlcuding this year (2.5) in his contract year. Unfortunately, he was playing in one of the two "playmaking" positions at OLB in the 3-4 and was excellent at containing the edge and forcing things back inside to Sopoaga and above average in coverage; not what we needed esp. for a 3-4 esp. when we DID have the pass rushers sitting on the bench, even proven ones such as Brooks and LaBoy. This is on Manusky who, along with Haralson proved he emphasized run support and not on pressuring the QB which exposed our MLB poor coverage and secondary coverage across the board. QB's had ALL day to expose us in a secondary that plays worse playing OFF it's men.
Willis - the entire defense was designed completely around keeping him free (see TKO) but unfortunately, ended up in coverage more than any ILB I've seen in a long time. This is on Manusky. In fact, as the year progressed the OLB's were almost exclusively in coverage as well instead of attacking.
TKO - sole job was to be a defensive FB and keep Willis free rather than playing an equal, interchangeable role as Willis including being an attacking, pass rushing ILB like other 3-4 teams employ.
Michael Lewis/Mays - when Lewis quit, many thought Mays would be the younger, faster, stronger version of Lewis with added speed and quickness to play close to the LOS to utilize even more QB pressures like many of the great safeties are used across the league. That's on Manusky - he had him excusively deep in coverage.
Goldson/Smith - same concept here and totally opposite from what Goldson's strengths were last year. This is on Manusky too (poor scheme)
Clements/Spencer - eeveryone knows that Spencer/Clemets are two of your bigger, more physical CB's who don't have blazing speed but love to play at the LOS, hit you in the mouth and knock you off your routes. What does Manusky do? He plays both 15 yards off WR's and allows play after play underneath with ZERO pass rush making it simple pitch-n-catch for QB's.

He had pure pass rushers in Brooks, LaBoy, Haralson (off the bench), McDonald, Smith, Willis, RJF (in an A-gap) and perhaps many more if utilized in that role but he ONLY used these players in very predictable sets and as an offensive coordinator, it was simple to game plan for us just by watching one game of film and our "personnel packages." When Brooks and LaBoy came in = protect the outside pass rush. When McDonald came in = double team his speed rush inside. This is BASIC football. It was the equivalent of a Raye offense when the defense knew "just follow Iuptai every time and you'll find Gore." Simple. Pathetic and not to ANY of the strengths of our team save for perhaps, Franklin, Mr. Franchise Tag!

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
The way I see it, Fangio is a vet at the 3-4. There's nothing Manusky was doing with our team that Fangio don't know how to do himself. Fangio also add years of experience and Harbaugh have trust in Vic. No brainer.

Experience does not equate to success. In Fangio's case, more experience meant a worse overall ranking IN ALL 3 OF HIS PREVIOUS DC JOBS. He took top 15 overall defenses and took them to the bottom or one step above the bottom:

Carolina
1995: 7th
1996: 10th
1997: 15th
1998: 30th (last in the league)

Indianapolis
1999: 15th
2000: 21st
2001: 29th

Houston
2002: 16th
2003: 31st
2004: 23rd
2005: 31st

Lots of people talk about lack of talent on his previous teams. I think that is bullchit! He had at least 3 years on each team to adjust his roster via FA, trade, draft, etc. yet he was never able to fix them. Manusky's defenses were not bad and at least were consistent:

Overall Defense the last 6 years:

2010: 13th overall
2009: 15th overall
2008: 13th overall
2007: 25th overall (still under Nolan regime)

The first year he took over, our defense improved to essentially twice as good according to rankings. Bottom line is we dont know much about how Fangio will do if he comes, but I would be worried. Based on EXPERIENCE, our defense should go to chits here in a year or two.

Yeah, Jimmy Raye had a ton of "experience" too but that doesn't mean he fits the NFL today. At this juncture, Fangio "may" fit what is best for this team and what the top NFL defenses scheme towards in todays game. Manusky clearly does not and may be best suited for the college ranks or an NFL team with a tremendous offense that can score quickly. This casue for concern has been posted and reposted in this thread from the beginning and is a very valid concern that we all share and one, I'm sure, has been brought to his attention. But in this role, make no mistake about it, he has to come here with a "vision" much like Harbaugh and we will draft, sign our own and bring in FA's who fit that vision much like a Capers, Steelers, San Diego and Baltimore defensive team. Let's hope for the best in scouting players who fit our system and who we can plug in at any time and not miss a beat (ala the WCO or San Diego 3-4 defense). Having the right "system" is critical towards success in the NFL.

How many times have we seen "crappy players" on our team go to other systems and perform very well...

I agree. If he comes to be our D-Coordinator, which is looking more and more likely everyday, everyone must buy into "the vision" and Baalke needs to get him the players that he asks for. It may not be who we as fans or even Baalke wants in some cases, but give him the best chance to succeed.

Manusky has been "ok", but I want better than ok. Is Fangio better than "OK"... I don't know.

First of all two of the teams Fangio coached were expansion teams... so that should tell you something about their talent. That Houston team was AWFUL... think 9ers at the end of Erickson...

2nd - His 3 years in Indy he ran a 43?! My only guess is that was a combination of defensive talent and/or HC preference.

I was more skeptical at first, but having looked at it, Im not sure he EVER had the talent to run his DEF. Obviously I think we can throw out the 43 in Indy. His other two stops had horrible talent (expansion teams) and from what I remember both of those teams tried to put together a Def with Veterans hoping to be average and then build an OFF. I remember Carolina spending top draft picks on Kerry Collins, Tim Biakabatuka, Muhsin Muhammed and Rae Carruth.... the Texans picking David Carr, Andre Johnson, and Jabar Gafney. I'm guessing there were probably some OL in there that I'm missing and maybe some DEF player that I forgot about as well.

My Point -
I don't believe he ever really had the talent, AND I think the teams FOCUS was always more toward building the OFF while he was there.

The more I look the more I lean toward Fangio.

I think we would ALL agree that our OFF was horrible this year... Did You Know???

We played 7 games against teams who averaged less yards per game than we did? 7 teams ranked in the bottom 7 of the league. OUCH!

and our DEF still allowed opposing QB's a 90+ QB rating...[/left]

Originally posted by Pick6:

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Norcal9erfan:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
The way I see it, Fangio is a vet at the 3-4. There's nothing Manusky was doing with our team that Fangio don't know how to do himself. Fangio also add years of experience and Harbaugh have trust in Vic. No brainer.

Experience does not equate to success. In Fangio's case, more experience meant a worse overall ranking IN ALL 3 OF HIS PREVIOUS DC JOBS. He took top 15 overall defenses and took them to the bottom or one step above the bottom:

Carolina
1995: 7th
1996: 10th
1997: 15th
1998: 30th (last in the league)

Indianapolis
1999: 15th
2000: 21st
2001: 29th

Houston
2002: 16th
2003: 31st
2004: 23rd
2005: 31st

Lots of people talk about lack of talent on his previous teams. I think that is bullchit! He had at least 3 years on each team to adjust his roster via FA, trade, draft, etc. yet he was never able to fix them. Manusky's defenses were not bad and at least were consistent:

Overall Defense the last 6 years:

2010: 13th overall
2009: 15th overall
2008: 13th overall
2007: 25th overall (still under Nolan regime)

The first year he took over, our defense improved to essentially twice as good according to rankings. Bottom line is we dont know much about how Fangio will do if he comes, but I would be worried. Based on EXPERIENCE, our defense should go to chits here in a year or two.

Yeah, Jimmy Raye had a ton of "experience" too but that doesn't mean he fits the NFL today. At this juncture, Fangio "may" fit what is best for this team and what the top NFL defenses scheme towards in todays game. Manusky clearly does not and may be best suited for the college ranks or an NFL team with a tremendous offense that can score quickly. This casue for concern has been posted and reposted in this thread from the beginning and is a very valid concern that we all share and one, I'm sure, has been brought to his attention. But in this role, make no mistake about it, he has to come here with a "vision" much like Harbaugh and we will draft, sign our own and bring in FA's who fit that vision much like a Capers, Steelers, San Diego and Baltimore defensive team. Let's hope for the best in scouting players who fit our system and who we can plug in at any time and not miss a beat (ala the WCO or San Diego 3-4 defense). Having the right "system" is critical towards success in the NFL.

How many times have we seen "crappy players" on our team go to other systems and perform very well...

I agree. If he comes to be our D-Coordinator, which is looking more and more likely everyday, everyone must buy into "the vision" and Baalke needs to get him the players that he asks for. It may not be who we as fans or even Baalke wants in some cases, but give him the best chance to succeed.

Manusky has been "ok", but I want better than ok. Is Fangio better than "OK"... I don't know.

First of all two of the teams Fangio coached were expansion teams... so that should tell you something about their talent. That Houston team was AWFUL... think 9ers at the end of Erickson...

2nd - His 3 years in Indy he ran a 43?! My only guess is that was a combination of defensive talent and/or HC preference.

I was more skeptical at first, but having looked at it, Im not sure he EVER had the talent to run his DEF. Obviously I think we can throw out the 43 in Indy. His other two stops had horrible talent (expansion teams) and from what I remember both of those teams tried to put together a Def with Veterans hoping to be average and then build an OFF. I remember Carolina spending top draft picks on Kerry Collins, Tim Biakabatuka, Muhsin Muhammed and Rae Carruth.... the Texans picking David Carr, Andre Johnson, and Jabar Gafney. I'm guessing there were probably some OL in there that I'm missing and maybe some DEF player that I forgot about as well.

My Point -
I don't believe he ever really had the talent, AND I think the teams FOCUS was always more toward building the OFF while he was there.

Agreed. Those expansion teams maybe emphasizing getting talents on offense first before getting more guys on defense. With Indy, he was fired for calling out the offense getting something like 4 int terrible game with Manning.