What do we do with lawson!

The real question is; do we need a LB that can cover and play the run very well?

We all know that pass rush is sorely lacking and Lawson isn't the answer. So draft a pass rusher.

Now if Lawson walks (and mid-season reports indicated he would), is there anyone else on the team that can do what he does?

Brooks is poor in coverage and frequently was caught inside on mis-direction running plays.

Haralson is a backup at best.

LaBoy can rush but not cover.

That leaves a spot for Lawson to do what he does best. All the expectations of him being a pass rusher were based on false evaluations and wrong assumptions. He is a good cover and run defending LB. Do you want to keep him for those reasons?

If he leaves you then need two OLBs in the draft or FA (no good choices in FA).

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Random thought of the day: I am so sick and tired of hearing fans b***h about how much it will cost to retain the services of X free agent. So What!!!? We need to start spending money, for the last few years we have been too far under the cap for how uncompetitive we've been. If you think we are saving the money for the perfect time to spend (SB run) you're kidding yourself, because we will never get there counting every penny.

And no, I'm not advocating going out and spending wrecklessly. At the same time we got to understand that you will ALWAYS OVER PAY when you aquire top tier talent in free agency. If you aren't willing to accept that fact, you shouldn't own a team.

You cant over pay for average players because when you want to sign a good player it will make him that much more money. You have to be paid market value for your services. Idiots like Al Davis and Dan Snyder ruin the pay rate market and every other owner hates them for it. Also niners are one of the lower revenue teams so they have to be picky on who they want to pay and who they dont.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by WestCoast:
he may not be a great pass rusher but he does possess other talents. he can defend an elite TE very well, a rb out of the backfield. I think we should re-sign him.

Unfortunately for Lawson, those things he does well are not needed in a properly run 3-4. Covering TE's is what CB's and safeties do. Setting the edge is what every LB is supposed to do whether you start up at the LOS or not; you set the edge and turn the RB inside to your help. Simple. And even that said, Brooks in limited snaps has more TFL than him. How is that? And let's be real here...we've been destroyed by RB's and WR's on screens as well as speedy backs off tackle so it's not like we can't improve in this area. So again, it comes back to the scheme we are going to run and THE #1 thing we need to help our ENTIRE defense (esp. the secondary) are two OLB's who can provide constant pressure and produce sacks and big plays. That's their job and sadly, neither Lawson or Haralson can do it even after 5 years!

Exactly.

And I disagree with those who say "we didn't ask Lawson to rush the passer." We did, he just didn't get there - like Haralson and Brooks. And NCommand totally right - if teams can't run on the edge, just throw a screen. Lawson usually gets blocked out of the play pretty easily.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2010/11/19/pass-rushing-productivity-whos-making-the-most-of-their-opportunities/

Do you have an original thought of your own on the matter Mr. 99 (AKA Manny Lawson)?

This is one of those stats that is absolutely ridiculous in the “big picture.” Manny only rushed 111 times which is downright sad for any OLB in a 3-4 defense and illustrates the point even more, that he cannot rush and therefore is relegated to what he can do and that is seal the edge and drop back in coverage (neither the #1 responsibility of an OLB in a 3-4); he's even replaced for LaBoy or Brooks for this very reason.

And to compare him to a real OLB like Tamba Hali who rushed 306 times and maintained a similar rate? Laughable.

Our own Travis LaBoy is on there as well and he rushed the same # of times as Manny did but did it as a third down-only “specialist.” That is more telling than anything esp. given when LaBoy rushes, everyone knows he's rushing!

Manny’s own agent must have paid someone to post this absoluetly meaningless stat. Now, if they compared all OLB's in a 3-4 who rushed 300-times or more then THAT would be a meaningful stat. Or compare all OLB's who only rush between 100-150, OK. But aside from SF, this latter stat doesn't exist b/c other 3-4 OLB's are on the field every down and rushing constantly (barring injuries).

Do you seriously think Manny could maintain this rate with 195 more times focusing on rushing the passer? Puuuhleez!

How is it Lawsons fault he only rushed 111 times? He runs the plays that are called. you dont just rush the passer whenever you feel like it.

Hes used in coverage alot because of his speed and length. This graphic shows that when he DOES rush the passer, hes very efficient. when hes asked to do so, he performs, which is exactly what everyone is saying he DOESNT do.

Obviously Tamba Hali is way better at rushing the passer, but the graphic just shows efficiency. obviously finishing 2nd place in efficiency with over 300 pass rushes is more impressive with 1st with 111. but the fact that Lawson was that efficient when he was asked to do so proves he isnt the bum people say he is.

this fanbase can be so uneducated about its players, i swear. they always look at the popular numbers and make judgments. "Lawson didnt get 15 sacks like other great pass rushing OLB's, what a bust." if you watched him every Sunday, youd see that hes a very versatile player. he does a very broad range of things for this defense that goes unappreciated.

Originally posted by dj43:
The real question is; do we need a LB that can cover and play the run very well?

Do you want my opinion? LOL...

Frankly, no. We will not need an OLB who can cover esp. under Fangio's scheme. We just need an OLB who can drop back in a short zone for a few seconds and maybe even get a pick here and there or chase down a pass, screen play, etc. Do we need an OLB who can play the run very well? Well, we have 10 other guys on the field that seem to "specialize" in stopping the run so no, not really.

The better question is, “Do we need two play-making OLB pass rushers who can also seal the edge en route to the QB AND play every down and move around a lot; even play from multiple positions? Yup!

Originally posted by dj43:
We all know that pass rush is sorely lacking and Lawson isn't the answer. So draft a pass rusher.

Oh we will! And hopefully he'll end up being the antithesis of Lawson this time and fit our 3-4 to a T.

Originally posted by dj43:
Now if Lawson walks (and mid-season reports indicated he would), is there anyone else on the team that can do what he does?

No question…b/c what Lawson brings, we don’t need esp. in Fangio’s defense. We don’t need a 6’6” OLB who is only rushing the passer 100 times a year, playing exclusively in coverage (not a zone) and who is sub’d out on passing downs for a better pass rusher dumbing down our team pass rush scheme, design and effectiveness. Lawson strikes no fear in the opposition, they don’t account for him for anything AND he makes the 3-4 scheme very predictable (which defeats the purpose of the 3-4 in general).

Originally posted by dj43:
Brooks is poor in coverage and frequently was caught inside on mis-direction running plays.

This is not true at all. Brooks had the same number of INT’s as Lawson did in 1/3 of the snaps and should have had at least two more (if he had hands). LaBoy also noted in an article by MB that he was surprised they were in coverage so much last year. That will not be the case under Fangio in 2011.

Originally posted by dj43:
Haralson is a backup at best.

I agree with this one, no doubt!

Originally posted by dj43:
LaBoy can rush but not cover.

This was certainly yet another case of Manusky not playing to the strengths of this team! I would say LaBoy’s best attributes are his pass rush, he’s OK against the run but does have good veteran savy to recognize screens, has experience and is poor out in space. In short, he will probably fit nicely in Fangio’s defense and be a stop-gap, if not more, for a 1st round pass rusher and/or FA.

Originally posted by dj43:
That leaves a spot for Lawson to do what he does best. All the expectations of him being a pass rusher were based on false evaluations and wrong assumptions. He is a good cover and run defending LB. Do you want to keep him for those reasons?

Nope! This leaves Lawson to choose another team that runs a 4-3 and fit HIS skill set better. And I’m sure he knows that. I’m basing this merely on his skill set alone…God only knows what he is actually asking for re: $. But I don’t care about that…

If he leaves you then need two OLBs in the draft or FA (no good choices in FA).

Yes and no…”if” we sign LaBoy, he and Brooks might play very well in a defense that fits their skill-set WITH Haralson coming off the bench to spell both (he’s proven he’s good at this at least). Then you just NEED one more pass rushing OLB at the top of the draft and or key FA or two for insurance or make a serious run at Lamarr Woodley (highly unlikely the Steelers would let him walk).

Originally posted by Niners99:
How is it Lawsons fault he only rushed 111 times? He runs the plays that are called. you dont just rush the passer whenever you feel like it.

How is it Lawson’s fault? B/c his entire career has demonstrated that he CAN NOT get to the QB so Manusky is forced to play to his two strengths on 1st and 2nd down (run support and in coverage) and THEN be sub’d for someone who can get to the QB on every passing situation. And for the record, yes you so rush almost exclusively. If you look at any OLB in the 3-4 (e.g. FO’s), you will see a trend. 1) The highest # is the # of plays they rush the passer 2) The second highest # is against the run and the 3) is the # they are in coverage. What you may not get is that the second highest #, those in run support START OUT as pass rushing plays but b/c the offense runs the ball, often times end up being noted as a run-defense play.

Originally posted by Niners99:
Hes used in coverage alot because of his speed and length. This graphic shows that when he DOES rush the passer, hes very efficient. when hes asked to do so, he performs, which is exactly what everyone is saying he DOESNT do.

Again, you are focusing on last year when ALL of our LBers were schemed in coverage b/c our pass defense was so poor. Again, THIS is b/c aside from LaBoy/Brooks, we don’t have a pass rush from Lawson/Haralson so QB’s rack up a 90+ QB rating all year and destroy our secondary who also is playing soft. But prior to Manusky’s garbage schemes last year, Manny rushed exclusively esp. in 2009 where we even went so far as hiring a pass rushing COACH to help out.

Again, this stat is meaningless and if you look at the other’s who posted on this topic, they explained while…but the fundamental difference is that there is no way Lawson would be on this list if he took 300+ snaps from a pass rushing stance. No way…b/c we hve proof the entire rest of his career to the contrary.

Originally posted by Niners99:
Obviously Tamba Hali is way better at rushing the passer, but the graphic just shows efficiency. obviously finishing 2nd place in efficiency with over 300 pass rushes is more impressive with 1st with 111. but the fact that Lawson was that efficient when he was asked to do so proves he isnt the bum people say he is.

He’s NOT efficient. We have 5 years of proof, my friend. Nobody hates the guy…fans just have very emotional ties to this guy for some reason but he doesn’t fit a properly run (or not) 3-4 for his skill set. Period. It would be like putting Ronnie Lott at MLB…sure, he’d probably do OK but he’d be a HOF if you moved him to CB/S.

Originally posted by Niners99:
this fanbase can be so uneducated about its players, i swear. they always look at the popular numbers and make judgments. "Lawson didnt get 15 sacks like other great pass rushing OLB's, what a bust." if you watched him every Sunday, youd see that hes a very versatile player. he does a very broad range of things for this defense that goes unappreciated.

You’re claiming this fan base is uneducated about its players? You’re talking to fans on this board who come from a generation of winners (even before the 80’s and 90’s), who not only watch every game, but record them, study it’s players objectively, break down tape and formulate their own opinions and share them with the masses to gain other valuable perspectives. This is the definition of an EDUCATED fan and there are many on this board and we know who they are and we respect them and their opinions very much.

And providing “just” a hyperlink to a meaningless stat to support your Manny-love without any thoughts to support it originally? Isn’t that the equivalent of those who just look at sack stats of Manny and say he sucks comparatively? Hmmm…

[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 3, 2011 at 12:51:03 ]

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Random thought of the day: I am so sick and tired of hearing fans b***h about how much it will cost to retain the services of X free agent. So What!!!? We need to start spending money, for the last few years we have been too far under the cap for how uncompetitive we've been. If you think we are saving the money for the perfect time to spend (SB run) you're kidding yourself, because we will never get there counting every penny.

And no, I'm not advocating going out and spending wrecklessly. At the same time we got to understand that you will ALWAYS OVER PAY when you aquire top tier talent in free agency. If you aren't willing to accept that fact, you shouldn't own a team.

Excellent point!!!

Glad too see I'm in good company....

I have no problem overpaying for top tier FA's. Its guys like Manny Lawson that I wouldn't overpay to keep. You wrap too much money up in mediocrity and it takes away your ability to sign difference makers.

So its not spending that's the issue. Its spending wisely.

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Random thought of the day: I am so sick and tired of hearing fans b***h about how much it will cost to retain the services of X free agent. So What!!!? We need to start spending money, for the last few years we have been too far under the cap for how uncompetitive we've been. If you think we are saving the money for the perfect time to spend (SB run) you're kidding yourself, because we will never get there counting every penny.

And no, I'm not advocating going out and spending wrecklessly. At the same time we got to understand that you will ALWAYS OVER PAY when you aquire top tier talent in free agency. If you aren't willing to accept that fact, you shouldn't own a team.

Excellent point!!!

Glad too see I'm in good company....

I have no problem overpaying for top tier FA's. Its guys like Manny Lawson that I wouldn't overpay to keep. You wrap too much money up in mediocrity and it takes away your ability to sign difference makers.

So its not spending that's the issue. Its spending wisely.

Not to mention it disallows you to develop other players who might fit the scheme better and grow and excel (b/c there is a high draft pick and $ wrapped up in the "starter.").

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Random thought of the day: I am so sick and tired of hearing fans b***h about how much it will cost to retain the services of X free agent. So What!!!? We need to start spending money, for the last few years we have been too far under the cap for how uncompetitive we've been. If you think we are saving the money for the perfect time to spend (SB run) you're kidding yourself, because we will never get there counting every penny.

And no, I'm not advocating going out and spending wrecklessly. At the same time we got to understand that you will ALWAYS OVER PAY when you aquire top tier talent in free agency. If you aren't willing to accept that fact, you shouldn't own a team.

Excellent point!!!

Glad too see I'm in good company....

I have no problem overpaying for top tier FA's. Its guys like Manny Lawson that I wouldn't overpay to keep. You wrap too much money up in mediocrity and it takes away your ability to sign difference makers.

So its not spending that's the issue. Its spending wisely.

Manny definately isn't a stud..but he is a solid OLB. If we get a stud pass rusher on the weak side Manny will play better simply because things will get forced his way in terms of pressure. Manny is very solid at the running game and in coverage.

I would like to keep him, BUT I'm not willing to break the bank for him.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Random thought of the day: I am so sick and tired of hearing fans b***h about how much it will cost to retain the services of X free agent. So What!!!? We need to start spending money, for the last few years we have been too far under the cap for how uncompetitive we've been. If you think we are saving the money for the perfect time to spend (SB run) you're kidding yourself, because we will never get there counting every penny.

And no, I'm not advocating going out and spending wrecklessly. At the same time we got to understand that you will ALWAYS OVER PAY when you aquire top tier talent in free agency. If you aren't willing to accept that fact, you shouldn't own a team.

I'm down. As long as we don't do a Dan Snyder.

Looks like I'm on a roll.....


P.S. This is not about Lawson. It was just a general thought.

Listen fans, it's as simple as this...Baalke reiterated THE #1 responsibility of an OLB is to get to the QB (and this implies on a very regular and consistent basis, creating TO’s, forcing incompletions, etc…essentially, being a play-maker at the play-making position; if this was a 4-3, your play-makers would be your DE's).

Manny can’t do this so why are we still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? You HAVE to be able to do your #1 responsibility in the NFL. Period.

If a QB proved he didn’t have accuracy after five years, would you stick with him? If a WR couldn’t catch would you stand by him? Or a MLB who couldn’t wrap up or a FB who couldn’t block or a Center who couldn’t snap or a RB who couldn’t find the open holes, etc.? Of course not!

So why are some of you OK with Manny Lawson as an OLB in the 3-4?

[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 3, 2011 at 13:15:32 ]

Originally posted by NCommand:
Listen fans, it's as simple as this...Baalke reiterated THE #1 responsibility of an OLB is to get to the QB (and this implies on a very regular and consistent basis, creating TO’s, forcing incompletions, etc…essentially, being a play-maker at the play-making position; if this was a 4-3, your play-makers would be your DE's).

Manny can’t do this so why are we still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? You HAVE to be able to do your #1 responsibility in the NFL. Period.

If a QB proved he didn’t have accuracy after five years, would you stick with him? If a WR couldn’t catch would you stand by him? Or a MLB who couldn’t wrap up or a FB who couldn’t block or a Center who couldn’t snap or a RB who couldn’t find the open holes, etc.? Of course not!

So why are some of you OK with Manny Lawson as an OLB in the 3-4?

Its because many fans build a personal attachment to players and think they are better then they really are.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Listen fans, it's as simple as this...Baalke reiterated THE #1 responsibility of an OLB is to get to the QB (and this implies on a very regular and consistent basis, creating TO’s, forcing incompletions, etc…essentially, being a play-maker at the play-making position; if this was a 4-3, your play-makers would be your DE's).

Manny can’t do this so why are we still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? You HAVE to be able to do your #1 responsibility in the NFL. Period.

If a QB proved he didn’t have accuracy after five years, would you stick with him? If a WR couldn’t catch would you stand by him? Or a MLB who couldn’t wrap up or a FB who couldn’t block or a Center who couldn’t snap or a RB who couldn’t find the open holes, etc.? Of course not!

So why are some of you OK with Manny Lawson as an OLB in the 3-4?

because it doesn't have to be the #1 responsibility for both OLBs...If you have one guy who can do it well, it opens things up for the other guy who is AVERAGE at it...let's not mistake this...Lawson doesn't suck at pass rush..he's merely average.

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Listen fans, it's as simple as this...Baalke reiterated THE #1 responsibility of an OLB is to get to the QB (and this implies on a very regular and consistent basis, creating TO’s, forcing incompletions, etc…essentially, being a play-maker at the play-making position; if this was a 4-3, your play-makers would be your DE's).

Manny can’t do this so why are we still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? You HAVE to be able to do your #1 responsibility in the NFL. Period.

If a QB proved he didn’t have accuracy after five years, would you stick with him? If a WR couldn’t catch would you stand by him? Or a MLB who couldn’t wrap up or a FB who couldn’t block or a Center who couldn’t snap or a RB who couldn’t find the open holes, etc.? Of course not!

So why are some of you OK with Manny Lawson as an OLB in the 3-4?

because it doesn't have to be the #1 responsibility for both OLBs...If you have one guy who can do it well, it opens things up for the other guy who is AVERAGE at it...let's not mistake this...Lawson doesn't suck at pass rush..he's merely average.

He has averaged 3.5 sacks a year, to me that SUCKS.

OK, this point is about Lawson.

I'm not able to add anything new to the Lawson discussion. However, what are the ramifications if we pay him 4 million a year? Then we pick up a true pass rusher in the draft (Woodly will not leave the Steelers for us). The rookies have their own pool right? Then we pick Asomagh and call it a day. Our D would be killer. So, while Lawson alone might not be worth it, all the pieces together would be priceless. Why couldn't we afford that?

Obviously if you think Lawson sucks it wouldn't make sense. I just dont think Lawson is nearly as replaceable as some of you think. If so, who would you replace him with, because I dont think that person is on the team.

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Listen fans, it's as simple as this...Baalke reiterated THE #1 responsibility of an OLB is to get to the QB (and this implies on a very regular and consistent basis, creating TO’s, forcing incompletions, etc…essentially, being a play-maker at the play-making position; if this was a 4-3, your play-makers would be your DE's).

Manny can’t do this so why are we still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? You HAVE to be able to do your #1 responsibility in the NFL. Period.

If a QB proved he didn’t have accuracy after five years, would you stick with him? If a WR couldn’t catch would you stand by him? Or a MLB who couldn’t wrap up or a FB who couldn’t block or a Center who couldn’t snap or a RB who couldn’t find the open holes, etc.? Of course not!

So why are some of you OK with Manny Lawson as an OLB in the 3-4?

because it doesn't have to be the #1 responsibility for both OLBs...If you have one guy who can do it well, it opens things up for the other guy who is AVERAGE at it...let's not mistake this...Lawson doesn't suck at pass rush..he's merely average.

Yes, actually it DOES...every 3-4 defense is striving to have what the Steelers have and each year, draft for players in this manner. If they have two OLB’s who can’t rush (us), we draft for two. If a team has one, you can BET they are looking for the second one as well.

What's sad is that the contingency for keeping Lawson (no matter what his $ tag is) is solely based on the “ideal” that someone else will be brought it who CAN do their #1 responsibility to make up for Manny’s inability. That’s sad and irrational.

And still, we gloss over my original question…why stick with a player (like with ALL other positions) when it’s been demonstrated for 5 years that he can’t do his #1 responsibility?

Are you afraid the current coaching staff can’t acquire or develop a better fit for their own scheme?