Biggesst problem on D last year

Originally posted by Hitman49:

Originally posted by FreddyG:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by tulliman:
puh puh puh pash rush puh pass rush pass rush

this

You can't do much with scheme if you can't pressure the opposing QB.

doesnt the pass rush come from a good scheme?

U can get a pass rush without scheme if the talent is there...if there is non then the pass rush must be schemed...looks like we didn't have either last year...

There has been so much wrong with coaching the past 6 years that it is really a little hard to tell how much is the players and how much is the scheme. Some player deficiencies are obvious but in most cases it is the square peg/round hole problem NCommand detailed. (good job)

Not enough pressure on opposing QB. Need more blitzing

I tend to think that we overestimate the players on the team.
Scheme is important, but schemes can be defeated.

In the pas two years, we have had no major changes in defensive.

In 2009, we had 48 sacks and were ranked fourth in the league.
In 2010, we had 36 sacks and were ranked 13th in the league.

A drop of 12 sacks--a major drop.

Since there were no major change in our players, my guess is that many of the 48 sacks in 2009 came because of defense scheme. By 2010, our opponents figured out the scheme and the sack totals dropped.

Whatever the reasons, we clearly had a much better pass rush in 2009.

What impact did that better pass rush have on our pass defense? According to the common sense on the board, a improved pass rush should produce an equally improved overall pass defense.

In 2009, we gave up 229.4 passing yards a game-21st in the league.
In 2010, we gave up 231.1 passing yards a game-24th in the league.

That is only a difference of 2.3 yards a game. That does not seem very significant.

Granted statistics do not always tell the whole story, but we can not deny the fact that our pass defense--with or without a pass rush--has been bad, really bad.

I tend to think that the quality of our defense backs is the problem.

^ interesting take.

Maybe the capabilities of our safeties are lacking, but our CBs are fine if just utilized properly. A few thoughts as brief as I can, and yeah... probably babbled them a few times.

- Opposing QBs were very often rewarded by our 7-10 yard CB cushions. Think about it... how often did their QB drop back and get the ball out to his first read underneath? A lot. Why wouldn't he? We allowed so much underneath yards to be take, why wouldn't they take them? If a WR can run however he pleases and with such clean release and freedom? It's just pitch and catch for chunks each time... and allows our rushers pretty much zero time to get to the QB.

- How many times did we see 3 rush while 8 dropped back? Way too much... This gets Justin easily doubled, and the other 3 OL allow the QB all day.

- Do we have elite pass rushers that can blow up and defeat blocks real quick-like? NO... so obviously some of it falls on the player skill. But there really aren't a ton of DeMarcus Wares out there... most of the productive ones have to rely on intelligent scheming to look good.

- Did we generate enough pressure up the gut? Hell no... worse in 2010 than 2009. What does this mean? It means that QBs had an easy time of stepping up into the pocket and away from the outside rush. DeMarcus Ware at least has a REAL penetrating NT in Ratliff to do this much, and it helps tremendously. We have the occasional Justin penetration... the occasional ILB blitzes... not enough.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
Our lack of pass rush

Originally posted by oldman9er:
^ interesting take.

Maybe the capabilities of our safeties are lacking, but our CBs are fine if just utilized properly. A few thoughts as brief as I can, and yeah... probably babbled them a few times.

- Opposing QBs were very often rewarded by our 7-10 yard CB cushions. Think about it... how often did their QB drop back and get the ball out to his first read underneath? A lot. Why wouldn't he? We allowed so much underneath yards to be take, why wouldn't they take them? If a WR can run however he pleases and with such clean release and freedom? It's just pitch and catch for chunks each time... and allows our rushers pretty much zero time to get to the QB.

- How many times did we see 3 rush while 8 dropped back? Way too much... This gets Justin easily doubled, and the other 3 OL allow the QB all day.

- Do we have elite pass rushers that can blow up and defeat blocks real quick-like? NO... so obviously some of it falls on the player skill. But there really aren't a ton of DeMarcus Wares out there... most of the productive ones have to rely on intelligent scheming to look good.

- Did we generate enough pressure up the gut? Hell no... worse in 2010 than 2009. What does this mean? It means that QBs had an easy time of stepping up into the pocket and away from the outside rush. DeMarcus Ware at least has a REAL penetrating NT in Ratliff to do this much, and it helps tremendously. We have the occasional Justin penetration... the occasional ILB blitzes... not enough.

I am not sure that corners are fine. Clements sure gave up a lot of big plays. And it seemed that he did so when he broke the scheme, when he bit on pump fakes.

IMO its the same argument as A smith. Has he been this subpar because of coaching changes and mismanagement and 5 diff. coordinators.... or is it because smith is actually subpar. So back to the topic, I feel it is the players who were the problem (also A smith is the problem, not the coaching changes). I'm not saying our scheme was the greatest last year, but the coaches werent the one's getting flagged for PI or missing tackles.... Just my Opinion

[ Edited by bigginz54 on Jun 27, 2011 at 12:33:54 ]

Originally posted by bigginz54:
IMO its he same argument as A smith. Has he been this subpar because of coaching changes and mismanagement and 5 diff. coordinators.... or is it because smith is actually subpar. So back to the topic, I feel it is the players who were the problem (also A smith is the problem, not the coaching changes). I'm not saying our scheme was the greatest last year, but the coaches werent the one's getting flagged for PI or missing tackles.... Just my Opinion

It's called discipline... That was the biggest problem. Discipline comes from the coaches. Maybe if our players were more prepared for game time situations there wouldn't have been as many bone head mistakes all season. Those are what cost us the season. There were so many mistakes at crucial times, we basically shot ourselves in the foot. We can't keep doing that. We need that mental toughness and that comes from the Coaches.

It seems to me that Manusky was more agressive with his CBs in 2009 than 2010. Clements played closer to the line and seems to be at a disadvantage when giving a cushion. Perhaps they were trying to help the safetys?

The new regime has made a point of saying they will design to the players strengths, not just force feed a system. That sounds like a very welcome change.

Originally posted by FreddyG:
I'd have to go with our scheme. We NEVER put our CB's in a good position. For years now everyone has been saying Nate isnt good when he doesnt press yet I dont think I've seen him press once since he's been here. We blitz at the worst times too, or just dont blitz at all. I hope this Fango guy can come in and coach to our players strengths.

Nate Clements! Gave up too many deep TD's to many different times. Al he had to do was go down in the ATL game and we win but since he thinks hes actually worth $80mil he thinks he can go all the way but he doesnt realize how slow he is and gets runs down easily by Roddy. He single handedly lost us a few games.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by foundone:
i vote both

Both...lots of square peg-round hole players, average players, players good at their #2 & #3 responsibilities and the scheme was and has been terrible for years and years now...most vanilla 3-4 defense you'll ever see.

You have a NT who's only good in a one-gap, a LDE who's only asked to occupy blockers and never push up field, an older and slower ILB who's constantly in solo coverage 30 yards down field, two starting OLBers who can't pass rush and the guys who can are only used on predictable sets, both ILB's are poor in coverage in the middle of the field, a defense that is very slow to react to screen passes, constantly burned by speedy RB's off tackle, a scheme that uses the TED as an "defensive fullback," CB's who are physical, agressive by nature playing 20 yards off WR's on 3rd and 3, safeties, like many of the players on defense, never did anything too good and they never did anything too bad, zero team tackling, poor technique and angles, play recognition, tons of "shooting yourself in the foot" plays, etc. There are many areas this team can improve upon in 2011: Philosophy/scheme/game planning/players who fit this scheme/player execution. This should lead to more QB pressures, more tackes for losses, playing in the oppositions backfield, dictacting an offense, more TO's, confidence, less time on the field, more time, opportunities and less pressure for the offense, etc.

News flash: Niners d played balls to the wall aggressive game one, and got their ass lit up by a weak team. They picked up from the year before looking to take it to the next level, and were embarrassed badly. Musky thought he had the d to do it based on the prior seasons progression, which looked like an up and coming top defense...a young defense maturing. Well, they went for it and got it handed to them by a poor team. I believe, that after that game, Musky and Sing saw that the d wad simply not going to be able go.play aggressive due to two things:

A malfunctioning offense.
A severe doubt about generating a consistent pass rush.

Hence, I think the made the call to back way the f**k up on the aggressiveness, and simply try and keep the Niners in the game by playing conservative d.

IMHO, given the two TRUE FACTS mentioned above pertaining to the offense and pass rush, this was probably the best option.

A defense ain't worth a s**t if it doesn't have an offense or CONSISTENT pass rush. Their hands are tied way to f**king tight at that point for any aggressive scheme to save them. There just isn't much you can do, you ass will get burnt if you try anything other than a small ball solution.

[ Edited by Blitz on Jun 27, 2011 at 21:01:34 ]

Originally posted by foundone:
i vote both

Originally posted by Blitz:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by foundone:
i vote both

Both...lots of square peg-round hole players, average players, players good at their #2 & #3 responsibilities and the scheme was and has been terrible for years and years now...most vanilla 3-4 defense you'll ever see.

You have a NT who's only good in a one-gap, a LDE who's only asked to occupy blockers and never push up field, an older and slower ILB who's constantly in solo coverage 30 yards down field, two starting OLBers who can't pass rush and the guys who can are only used on predictable sets, both ILB's are poor in coverage in the middle of the field, a defense that is very slow to react to screen passes, constantly burned by speedy RB's off tackle, a scheme that uses the TED as an "defensive fullback," CB's who are physical, agressive by nature playing 20 yards off WR's on 3rd and 3, safeties, like many of the players on defense, never did anything too good and they never did anything too bad, zero team tackling, poor technique and angles, play recognition, tons of "shooting yourself in the foot" plays, etc. There are many areas this team can improve upon in 2011: Philosophy/scheme/game planning/players who fit this scheme/player execution. This should lead to more QB pressures, more tackes for losses, playing in the oppositions backfield, dictacting an offense, more TO's, confidence, less time on the field, more time, opportunities and less pressure for the offense, etc.

News flash: Niners d played balls to the wall aggressive game one, and got their ass lit up by a weak team. They picked up from the year before looking to take it to the next level, and were embarrassed badly. Musky thought he had the d to do it based on the prior seasons progression, which looked like an up and coming top defense...a young defense maturing. Well, they went for it and got it handed to them by a poor team. I believe, that after that game, Musky and Sing saw that the d wad simply not going to be able go.play aggressive due to two things:

A malfunctioning offense.
A severe doubt about generating a consistent pass rush.

Hence, I think the made the call to back way the f**k up on the aggressiveness, and simply try and keep the Niners in the game by playing conservative d.

IMHO, given the two TRUE FACTS mentioned above pertaining to the offense and pass rush, this was probably the best option.

A defense ain't worth a s**t if it doesn't have an offense or CONSISTENT pass rush. Their hands are tied way to f**king tight at that point for any aggressive scheme to save them. There just isn't much you can do, you ass will get burnt if you try anything other than a small ball solution.

I dunno? The first game seemed to fall apart when Nate Clements bit on the same play fake two drives in a row for t.d's. We fell apart after that. I think that had more to do with us losing than lack of pass rush.

first and foremost, this team has been rudderless for 8 yrs. ERickson, noln, and to cap it all off BM, as in bowel movement mike. 3 guys, none of which had any business being on a football field as anything other than an observer, and they didn't even rate that. I have no idea what our talent level is at anything but one LB position, and p52 is the obvious guy there. We had "coaches" that had no idea what we were doing, and worse, an owner that didn't know the difference. I hope we have talent, i think we have talent, but until JH has 2 mos or more with these guys, i just don't think we will know what we have as the big problem. Unquestionably we have been led by the 3 worst coaches in nfl history. Now, if we have a problem, say at OG for example, we will see if jh can coach up chilo. Can he come up with a D scheme that can actually stop a team on 3rd and short, long or anything in between. I got so sick of seeing us not stop anybody on 3rd and long that i turned off the radio /tv. I sure as heck didn't want to see these games in person.

A big issue will be can JH take the talent we have and protect a guy who is a liability, but because of talent shortage, has to start. Or better, can he promote or acquire a player who can do better. The biggest change is going to be a take charge qb, and that will be the real challenge for our coach. Harbaugh took a mighty poor stanford team and remade it. i believe he will do the same here. We haven't seen a good coach in so long that it hurts. We deserve one and we got him. I just hope yorks don't run him off.

As for players or scheme? It is always scheme, because if you don't know how to coach, all your players are going to look like doo doo, with a very few noted exceptions, both being on D. It is more than scheme however. We fielded guys who couldn't tackle, guys who couldn't pass rush, guys who couldn't cover, guys who couldn't catch or get open....
the list is long. Much of that comes down to basic football, and our "pizz poor excuses for coaches" were totally lacking in knowing how to teach even the basic fundamentals. AS for game plans? Fuggedaboudit. None of those jokers had a clue, but as noted above, it went way deeper than that.

our secondary blows