Biggesst problem on D last year

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Cool...yeah, it was quoted that the TEd position, i.e. Spikes position was best described as a "defensive FB" - basically someone who does the dirty work to free up Willis. We are the only 3-4 defense that uses the TED this way. And if Willis, well, all of our ILBers have a weakness, it's certainly in coverage and esp. coverage in the middle of the field. Of course, having two safeties that do next to nothing doesn't help either but let's be real here...we have been destroyed by teams by TE's, RB's and many WR's right in the middle of the field IMHO. Some of that is scheme too and playing in the 3-4; each scheme has it's weakness.

Yeah, not trying to be argumentative with this. I just remember hearing (and pretty well seeing) that from Manusky, our ILBs are very interchangeable, and we don't really have 1 over the other there to primarily "FB" in the way that old-school 3-4 Ted backers once did.

The coverage from them can always be better, but I was generally impressed with our ILB coverage... relatively speaking.

No worries and you are correct. In fact, almost all positions are interchangeable in the 3-4 and can be adjusted depending on what the defensive call is and where the offense lines up but it was widely known that we use the TED as the defensive FB and if you really look at our defense across the board, it was designed to free up Willis, hence the term coined by Nolan/Singletary/Manusky. That said, we played pretty straight up on most positions. Hopefully, we'll be more interchangeable this year and create more mismatches.

Maybe it was just me but it seemed like we gave up a ton of TD's right down the middle of the field, either in runs or simple passes and remember both Willis/Spikes getting beaten quite a bit so perhaps some of that was on them; could be wrong so no worries.

Originally posted by Blitz:
News flash: Niners d played balls to the wall aggressive game one, and got their ass lit up by a weak team.

So true...but this WAS game 1 of the season IN Seattle right? So you abandon your successes from the previous year and instead, bleed to death slowly? The end result was the same either way. We had a much better pass rush "collectively" albeit very few from the starting OLB's and very few that mattered and I believe we got quite a few from one or two games also (Arizona?). So after five years with the same exact starting defense, Manusky doesn't know our strengths and weaknesses? We poored in numerous first round draft picks, bought big named-FA's and who did we develop? It's as much on the coaches as it was the players, IMHO

But I hear what you are saying...if you have two starting OLB's who can't get to the QB, you're not going to be successful. If you have a NT who's only good in a one gap, same concept. If you never move Smith around all over the line, it makes it easier to block him. Depth? You best pass rushers were sitting on the bench waiting to come in on obvious pass rush downs. CB's playing 100 yards off WR's on 3rd and 3.

I saw Manusky the equivalent to Jimmy Raye or Mike Nolan when he was here. All about as vanilla as you can get. I would like to "think" though that had Manusky a Ware or Matthews, he would have turned them loose and played off them. But I doubt it...he'd probably only use them as situational pass rushers.

We'll see as Manusky takes over a #1 ranked defense in San Diego. It should be interesting. Will he pull a Nolan after he left SF and go ultra aggressive or "stay the course...?"

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Blitz:
News flash: Niners d played balls to the wall aggressive game one, and got their ass lit up by a weak team.

So true...but this WAS game 1 of the season IN Seattle right? So you abandon your successes from the previous year and instead, bleed to death slowly? The end result was the same either way. We had a much better pass rush "collectively" albeit very few from the starting OLB's and very few that mattered and I believe we got quite a few from one or two games also (Arizona?). So after five years with the same exact starting defense, Manusky doesn't know our strengths and weaknesses? We poored in numerous first round draft picks, bought big named-FA's and who did we develop? It's as much on the coaches as it was the players, IMHO

But I hear what you are saying...if you have two starting OLB's who can't get to the QB, you're not going to be successful. If you have a NT who's only good in a one gap, same concept. If you never move Smith around all over the line, it makes it easier to block him. Depth? You best pass rushers were sitting on the bench waiting to come in on obvious pass rush downs. CB's playing 100 yards off WR's on 3rd and 3.

I saw Manusky the equivalent to Jimmy Raye or Mike Nolan when he was here. All about as vanilla as you can get. I would like to "think" though that had Manusky a Ware or Matthews, he would have turned them loose and played off them. But I doubt it...he'd probably only use them as situational pass rushers.

We'll see as Manusky takes over a #1 ranked defense in San Diego. It should be interesting. Will he pull a Nolan after he left SF and go ultra aggressive or "stay the course...?"

All of this.

Players without a doubt. You cannot be a good defense with a horrible secondary and no pass rush from your edge players. The only two reasons we are in the top half of the league in total D is because Patrick Willis and Justin Smith are beasts with unreal motors

[ Edited by RichmondPete on Jun 30, 2011 at 11:06:26 ]

On D last year, it all starts with the players. We didn't get aggressive because the risks weren't paying off. Blitzing Manny or Paris every down doesn't have the same effect as sending a Ware every down.

We can't run the same scheme a Green Bay, Dallas, or Pittsburgh can. We'd get killed because we don't have the players for it.

There were few blitzes by MLBs or DBs so I would make the case for scheme. The D was pretty predictable...rush from outside, get no push by the NT and cover, cover cover for ever. The DBs had to play off the line because they knew it would take time to get to the QB.

Originally posted by Overkill:
On D last year, it all starts with the players. We didn't get aggressive because the risks weren't paying off. Blitzing Manny or Paris every down doesn't have the same effect as sending a Ware every down.

We can't run the same scheme a Green Bay, Dallas, or Pittsburgh can. We'd get killed because we don't have the players for it.

The problem was the 49ers didn't TRY to run the same schemes as those other teams. Instead, the 49ers ran some very vanilla stuff that was relatively easy to detect and defend.

The stuff that Dom Capers runs at Green Bay is very deceptive and doesn't show itself until the play actually starts. It is very different than what Manusky/Sing ran last year.

I am looking forward to see what Fangio brings to the table. Having spent a good amount of time working under Capers, I expect to see some more creative things that actually use some deception to create pressure instead of just a bunch of macho man junk.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Overkill:
On D last year, it all starts with the players. We didn't get aggressive because the risks weren't paying off. Blitzing Manny or Paris every down doesn't have the same effect as sending a Ware every down.

We can't run the same scheme a Green Bay, Dallas, or Pittsburgh can. We'd get killed because we don't have the players for it.

The problem was the 49ers didn't TRY to run the same schemes as those other teams. Instead, the 49ers ran some very vanilla stuff that was relatively easy to detect and defend.

The stuff that Dom Capers runs at Green Bay is very deceptive and doesn't show itself until the play actually starts. It is very different than what Manusky/Sing ran last year.

I am looking forward to see what Fangio brings to the table. Having spent a good amount of time working under Capers, I expect to see some more creative things that actually use some deception to create pressure instead of just a bunch of macho man junk.

I understand what you're trying to say, and it is kind of a chicken/egg argument. But Capers didn't do the things he does in Green Bay when he was in Miami or Houston, either. His players in Green Bay allow him to be more aggressive there.

I highly doubt Capers would come to SF and implement the same system, just putting any one of our OLB's in the Matthews role, for example. That defense simply wouldn't work. I think he'd be more creative than Manusky ever was while here, but I doubt you'd see him attempting to run half the things he does in GB.

So I'm not saying Manusky bears no responsibility (he was run-focused and conservative), but he didn't have a top pass rusher or top coverage safety. He had guys good at "setting the edge" and run support safeties. Justin Smith is our best pass rusher and his best move is the bull rush. It doesn't make sense to ask him to do a lot of complicated stuff schematically when he's better at simply out-working and wearing down his opponent. You have to play to the strengths of the guys you got imo.

All of Fangio's comments lead me to believe that he's not coming here with a pre-defined system. Like you, I'm expecting him to do at least something different, and hopefully Aldon Smith gives him reason to. But I'm not expecting our defense to suddenly morph into a GB or Pittsburgh clone. I just don't believe we have the players for it.

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Overkill:
On D last year, it all starts with the players. We didn't get aggressive because the risks weren't paying off. Blitzing Manny or Paris every down doesn't have the same effect as sending a Ware every down.

We can't run the same scheme a Green Bay, Dallas, or Pittsburgh can. We'd get killed because we don't have the players for it.

The problem was the 49ers didn't TRY to run the same schemes as those other teams. Instead, the 49ers ran some very vanilla stuff that was relatively easy to detect and defend.

The stuff that Dom Capers runs at Green Bay is very deceptive and doesn't show itself until the play actually starts. It is very different than what Manusky/Sing ran last year.

I am looking forward to see what Fangio brings to the table. Having spent a good amount of time working under Capers, I expect to see some more creative things that actually use some deception to create pressure instead of just a bunch of macho man junk.

I understand what you're trying to say, and it is kind of a chicken/egg argument. But Capers didn't do the things he does in Green Bay when he was in Miami or Houston, either. His players in Green Bay allow him to be more aggressive there.

I highly doubt Capers would come to SF and implement the same system, just putting any one of our OLB's in the Matthews role, for example. That defense simply wouldn't work. I think he'd be more creative than Manusky ever was while here, but I doubt you'd see him attempting to run half the things he does in GB.

So I'm not saying Manusky bears no responsibility (he was run-focused and conservative), but he didn't have a top pass rusher or top coverage safety. He had guys good at "setting the edge" and run support safeties. Justin Smith is our best pass rusher and his best move is the bull rush. It doesn't make sense to ask him to do a lot of complicated stuff schematically when he's better at simply out-working and wearing down his opponent. You have to play to the strengths of the guys you got imo.

All of Fangio's comments lead me to believe that he's not coming here with a pre-defined system. Like you, I'm expecting him to do at least something different, and hopefully Aldon Smith gives him reason to. But I'm not expecting our defense to suddenly morph into a GB or Pittsburgh clone. I just don't believe we have the players for it.

Very very nice post and you are both correct IMHO esp. re: the chicken or the egg comment. We saw when Nolan went to Denver and then Miami, he suddenly was the DC we wanted all along...but did he become that b/c he had better players or b/c he was hired with the contigency of tossing the vanilla label aside and forced to be "aggressive and creative?" We'll see the same with Manusky this year in San Diego. Eventually, we'll have our answer as it related to OUR defense here in SF...but in the end, it's probably a case of "both."