Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Maybe I dont understand (stranger things have happend...
), but the 3-4 should be all about blitz scheme and not one individual. The reason why Rex Ryan is so dangerous is because you never know from where the blitz comes and who will be in converage. The Niners mistake is that they always ran the worlds most vanilla blitz and you ALWAYS new from where it was coming (except Willis up the middle).
LOL…oh I totally agree here. I’m so happy Manusky is gone for this very reason. Yeah, if you could incorporate exotic (and effective) blitz schemes, then you don’t need to run a base as much where the focus is on one individual. BUT, that said, the defense, like with the offense, is designed around your play-makers and freeing them up. The play-makers on a 3-4 are your OLB’s so many of the schemes (ala Matthews) will be designed to free him up. If either Manny or Haralson could provide even a semblance of a pass rush, you can bet even Manusky would have turned them loose. A good example of this is Willis…Willis is our best player so Manusky used the TED (Spikes) as a defensive FB to free Willis up to make plays. Seattle did the same with Peterson.
The problem is that if we con’t to run Manny out there we will never develop a balanced attack or play to the strengths of a disguising 3-4 and again, we are banking that someone on the other side will be able to do what Manny can’t. That’s not a good formula for success.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
I think a lot of people are taking the Baalke quote to the extreme.
Perhaps but Baalke was an OLB himself and after studying Fangio’s defense and Harbaugh’s package deal with Fangio, I don’t think there is any question we are going to try and emulate the ‘ol Saint’s LBers as much as possible with all four LBers rushing and schemes designed around freeing them up and generating pressure from every position on defense.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
All the guys you mentioned I would consider a liablity in almost every catagory, especially considering that their sack totals wouldn't exactly classify them as Passrush specialist. Are you really going to sub in Brooks (or take your pick) and pick up 3 or 4 more sacks, but get burned by the TE and RB on a regular basis. Obviously, I can't prove that would happen, but that's the way I see it. Haralson had a Probowler on his side and he could hardly stop the run and rarely got a sack. Brooks and Laboy came in on 3rd down with fresh legs and still rarely got the job done.
What liability. Again, Manusky is gone. We will be running a counter defensive philosophy to his vanilla 3-4. The focus will be on pass rushers, first and foremost at the OLB posts and that is what Brooks, LaBoy and potentially Gibson and Haralson do best (the ladder in the right circumstances). They won’t be covering TE’s 30 yards down the field or dropping back 20 yards in coverage. And the only time they need to worry about the RB is redirecting him inside and sealing the edge if the offense chooses to run. The rest of the team will be responsible for covering TE’s, screens, WR’s, etc. I think we are jumping to the conclusion that no other LB on this team can stop a RB. Brooks, again, had more TFL with the exception of two players. I agree with you about Haralson but he’s a PT player playing every snap. You put him in the right situations and even he could end up being successful again.
But we won’t know until Brooks is allowed to take every snap and LaBoy (former FT starter at OLB himelf) is allowed to take every snap or until a Haralson and Gibson and 1st round rookie is worked into the mix. We won’t know b/c we’ll have a square peg tying up their development. I just think some of you are over-valuing Manny’s skill set way too much for a defense he doesn’t even fit and assuming other’s can’t perform not only better at the #1 responsibility but at the two other areas that are not as needed now.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Further more, I have to disagree with you. In most of the games that I watched Lawson gets a lot of pressure, he just doesn't get the sack. He would be far more effective with a legit passrusher on the other side, or if he went to the weakside.
Manny, at best, can provide the occasional pressure (never consistent) but rarely does he have the instincts to direct that pressure into anything meaningful…again, he’s a close-but-no-cigar player. Either way, even without a dominant WILL, Manny “did” have Cowboy applying plenty of pressure “and sacks” by himself over there while being double-teamed. Manny would never need to be double-teamed. Ever. 2.5 sacks. Weak.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Finally, how many teams have two elite passrushers? 1, maybe 2? I think if you kept Lawson and had a great passrusher to complement him, you would see his numbers skyrocket and you wouldn't have to give up coverage and run support.
You mean like Mario Williams? You see, this is my point, why should the other 10 guys on defense suffer b/c Manny doesn’t have the skill set to make this team better at what it CRITICALLY needs more than anything on defense. Let him walk and allow this coaching staff to identify guys who ARE better fits for this system and allow them to grow and develop so that we can finally get off this average-at-best roller-coaster ride. We were 6-10 last year right? And this defense was a big part of that right? Trust me, he’s not ½ as good as you’d think. He’s like that OK girl who hangs out with ugly women to make herself look better. LMAO. Bad example?
But to your point…it does take time to find and build the proper 3-4. We saw what happened to Denver when they lost Elvis. Had they had another dominant OLB, they might not have missed a beat. The goal of ANY defense is to obtain two key pass rushers, albeit as DE’s in the 4-3 or OLB’s in the 3-4. Those closest to this goal typically end up being the #1 ranked defense, play in the playoffs or in the case on Sunday, both play each other in the Superbowl.
[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 3, 2011 at 14:37:03 ]
