Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
apparently not. borland plays with heart but he just looked undersized and was a total mismatch vs. run and pass

Yeah. It impacted a lot. I think last td he got bowled.

And you think Willis makes that tackles with a wall of offense there? Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. The last full game Willis played, he too had 8 tackles. So no, not THAT big of a drop off. What hurt more than anything was that Wilhoite was forced into calling the defensive alignments. That said, I don't remember any blown assignments but we also don't know if we had to dumb down the alignments either.

How the f**k does losing Willis in replacement of Borland NOT that big of a drop off? you're laughable.

Willis made 8 tackles last game and Borland made 8 tackles this game. Therefore Borland more or less equals Willis.

Come on, NC. You can't use that logic to come to that conclusion.

Playing press man coverage is a bold statement. It says "our CBs are better than your WRs - physcially and technique wise". That is not that case when it's Cox/Cook/Brock versus DThomas/WWelker/ESanders. This whole notion of playing press equals a 49er victory is hogwash. Would it have given the 49ers a better chance? Who knows, but based on the matchups above, I doubt it. The 49er CBs are not better than the DEN WRs and it's not even close.

No of course not thl! You know me better than that...I said production wise, it was similar and certainly not enough to warrant significance in such a lopsided loss. I even explained in a previous post that Willis does a lot of things that don't show up on stat sheet. The big one was that Wilhoite had to call the defensive alignments...this means, and it's an assumption, the alignment calls were dumbed down.

Press coverage doesn't necessarily mean we're better than you or that we'll stay in your hip pocket everywhere you go...it says, "You, mother$%^&, are not coming off this line free and clean and uncontested. You will have to earn every yard you get and I will throw you off your timing." That's all. The big one we needed to worry about physically, like all teams, is Thomas. And that would be a battle. The rest of the "speedy" guys, the last thing you want to do is give them free, clean releases. Ask Harvin how that's worked out in Seattle when teams suddenly challenge you physically and beat you up and don't give you clean releases.

I'm never said we'd win the game...I said mixing up the two style would certainly give us a fighting chance. Everyone knows the only way you beat Manning (or give yourself a chance) is to throw off the timing of routes. Period. I don't know too many pass rushes who can get their consistently under 3 seconds. Do you?

Not sure what you mean by the last line...better? The Giants back in the day were not better than our WR's but they challenged us physically and won.

When going 1v1 in man coverage it helps to have a great pass rush. I know you know this, just stating it so that I can make the next point. The longer a CB is forced to be 1v1 against a WR that is better than him, the more separation that WR will get. Please don't use the 'Giants back in the day' as an example and compare it to the 49er defense that was fielded yesterday. They had Lawrance Taylor wrecking havoc. Oh and they also played zone. It was about jamming the WRs to throw off the timing routes, while keeping their eyes on the QB (zone).

LT was the best ever but name one of their DB's from that time? LOL. It wasn't just LT, they were also the first ones to beat the crap out of Taylor/Rice and allow their pass rushers to get there while Montana ran around trying to find someone open. They threw the timing off. Those games were 7-3 for a reason...always. They challenged us. This is how Seattle won a Superbowl. Now they have to play off more and are they as effective? OK...bad example b/c they got away with murder BUT the point is, they challenged the WR's in physical press...not every down...but a lot. They disrupted timing.

We don't have LT or 8 seasoned veterans all rotating in as pass rushers. But we do have a pretty good tandem in Brooks/Lynch/Skuta with Smith/McDonald in base. You give them 3.5-4+ seconds they're going to be desruptive. Defenses used to HATE playing us (WCO) b/c the pass rushers would bust their butts to no avail. They'd get there and the ball is already out and JR is running 80 for a TD. This is what happened last night and it's no secret. The last thing you can do is sit back and watch Manning toss 2-7 yard passes and chew you up in off coverage. Great....you tackle them for no gain.

Challenge them...give your pass rushers a chance (b/c right now, we don't have Aldon/ware/Miller). And I'm not talking about "press" where we just line up close to the LOS and lightly touch a WR as they run by us...but literally, jamming them and forcing them to go around, through or over you to get to their spots. I would think Johnson, Cook, Culliver, Brock, Cox, etc. would not only excel in this but love that style. Not every down...but enough.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
he was rusty. i can't get too mad at him. he hasn't played in forever and as soon as he comes back culliver goes out. it's like their tagging each other in.

I know he was rusty. this was the worst game for him to come back in. personnel wise we were in trouble to start the game.

i agree with that as well

Originally posted by thl408:
Here's the article that shows how those Giants back in the day combated Walsh's WCO:

http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/s/westcoast/popularity.html

This is straight from Steve Young:
-----------------------------------------------------
The defense that gave us the most difficulty, however, was the New York Giants through the 1980s and the early 1990s under defensive coordinator Bill Belichick. The defense (generally a two-deep zone) wasn't tactically difficult, and we had the plays for it. But the Giants players -- Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Carl Banks, Gary Reasons, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson -- were together so long and ran it so well, they limited our explosiveness.

The Giants always had 11 eyeballs on the quarterback. They played zone, faced the quarterback, waited for me to throw the ball and tackled everything, forcing us to work our way down the field. No one was able to get free runs with the ball. Belichick also understood that he could affect the quarterback's timing if a defensive back got in the receiver's face.

bump

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

and this continues to work back to my point.
you don't have the personnel to run the defense that you want so do something different with the defense you have. im just not going to accept bend over and take it as a viable game plan.

Exactly Jones!

Originally posted by thl408:
Here's the article that shows how those Giants back in the day combated Walsh's WCO:

http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/s/westcoast/popularity.html

This is straight from Steve Young:
-----------------------------------------------------
The defense that gave us the most difficulty, however, was the New York Giants through the 1980s and the early 1990s under defensive coordinator Bill Belichick. The defense (generally a two-deep zone) wasn't tactically difficult, and we had the plays for it. But the Giants players -- Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Carl Banks, Gary Reasons, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson -- were together so long and ran it so well, they limited our explosiveness.

The Giants always had 11 eyeballs on the quarterback. They played zone, faced the quarterback, waited for me to throw the ball and tackled everything, forcing us to work our way down the field. No one was able to get free runs with the ball. Belichick also understood that he could affect the quarterback's timing if a defensive back got in the receiver's face.

That's how I remember it too. Challenged. Fans forget that JR and JT were the biggest WR's in the game (like Chicago now). We had no problems throwing off smaller DB's on quick slants, etc. But once a physical team like the Giants came along, and you could get away with much more back then, our WR's were beat up and spent a week in the ice tub. It was much harder to get to those spots coming off the line. Rice always said, if you win at the LOS, you're beat within 1 or 2 steps. It all starts there. Having a clean release every time makes it that much easier to beat you esp. with a timing offense.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by thl408:
Here's the article that shows how those Giants back in the day combated Walsh's WCO:

http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/s/westcoast/popularity.html

This is straight from Steve Young:
-----------------------------------------------------
The defense that gave us the most difficulty, however, was the New York Giants through the 1980s and the early 1990s under defensive coordinator Bill Belichick. The defense (generally a two-deep zone) wasn't tactically difficult, and we had the plays for it. But the Giants players -- Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Carl Banks, Gary Reasons, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson -- were together so long and ran it so well, they limited our explosiveness.

The Giants always had 11 eyeballs on the quarterback. They played zone, faced the quarterback, waited for me to throw the ball and tackled everything, forcing us to work our way down the field. No one was able to get free runs with the ball. Belichick also understood that he could affect the quarterback's timing if a defensive back got in the receiver's face.

bump

So do that or try that. bump zone and hope for the best. It's hard to argue that what we did last night was the best possible plan of action considering how relatively easy it was for the broncos and how uncharacteristically unacceptable that defense looked like last night. the bronco's are only that good when there is no resistance. there was no will imposed we just let them run free like it was a drill and it cost us big time.

also

all of this is healthy debate that i appreciate. especially none of the condescending remarks that find their way in these sort of things.

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

So again the solution is just wish we had aldon other than that just let it happen.. gotcha.

we know things are different when all of our players are in the game. that statement hasn't been disputed by me.
my position is you have to do something else when the 1st thing you planned for clearly isn't working.
if we don't have the pass rush with aldon smith in there somehow give them an extra second to do something maybe?

blitzing is out of the question imo
what else is there to do..

You don't blitz a high percentage. But you absolutely cannot commit to a 4 man pash rush when you do not have the personnel. You have to balance your scheme. Watching Manning shred teams for 15 plus years, I have never seen a team beat him running a zone an a poor 4 man pass rush.

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
...all of this is healthy debate that i appreciate. especially none of the condescending remarks that find their way in these sort of things.

Was going to say the same thing. I very much appreciate everyone's insights b/c this is a great topic on scheme and defensive philosophy. Obviously, we may not have to revist this again until we play a timing offense like this BUT we'll probably play one in the playoffs. So will we learn?

These topics are so tough b/c I feel the personnel excuses get played out way too easy...even player execution. There will always be truth with these two as reasons as well but the ones that always seem to be ignored in a 60 minute game is the stuff not always seen or noticed on TV: philosophy, scheme, game planning, proper use of personnel (or non use of others), etc.

Football is the ultimate team sport. For every personnel excuse I can probably state a scheme or design that would maximize the success of each and every player and minimize their weaknesses. That was the genius in Walsh and his system. But having great personnel means your playbook is more open and you, as a DC/OC are more confident in what you call, take more chances, etc. At this point, I'm actually wondering what the definition of a poor game plan or philosophy IS for some fans...are our coaches infallible?...do we have to have every single player healthy with zero player execution issues and lose by 60?

It's OK to admit we came in with a poor game plan and got beat, straight up...we had some funky personnel inserts and switches. The only thing that bothers me in this loss, more than anything, isn't the loss itself but the fact that our game plan played into the strengths of the opposition and it was a well-documented opponent (not one everyone is still trying to figure out like us 2 years ago).

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

we're not trying to be seattle

seattle isn't even excellent in coverage without being able to hold you this year is proving that fact.

i am saying in a timing based offense you need to do something to knock them off of their routes or disrupt the timing.
the answer can't be do nothing and hope for the best.

now
blitzing will get you murdered against manning.
playing zone will get you beat like it did playing off man will get you beat like it did
if you're going to go out, go out swinging imo.
don't make it easy on them when physical nature is what they don't like. don't play our guys for being completely horrible compared to denver's wr's they're not. the ONLY wr that doesn't care about contact is thomas. the rest can't deal with it.

and again none of this means we win the game none of it means if we did this it would have been completely different it just means try this or we should have tried something or prepared differently than we did.

This is the exact same thing I said. This most important things to stopping a dynamic offense is to knock them off of their rhythm and HIT HARD AND DO IT EVERY PLAY.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Was going to say the same thing. I very much appreciate everyone's insights b/c this is a great topic on scheme and defensive philosophy. Obviously, we may not have to revist this again until we play a timing offense like this BUT we'll probably play one in the playoffs. So will we learn?

These topics are so tough b/c I feel the personnel excuses get played out way too easy...even player execution. There will always be truth with these two as reasons as well but the two that always seem to be ignored in a 60 minute game is philosophy, scheme, game planning, proper use of personnel (or non use of others), etc.

Football is the ultimate team sport. For every personnel excuse I can probably state a scheme or design that would maximize the success of each and every player and minimize their weaknesses. That was the genius in Walsh and his system. But having great personnel means your playbook is more open and you, as a DC/OC are more confident in what you call, take more chances, etc. At this point, I'm actually wondering what the definition of a poor game plan or philosophy IS for some fans...are our coaches infallible?...do we have to have every single player healthy with zero player execution issues and lose by 60?

It's OK to admit we came in with a poor game plan and got beat, straight up...we had some funky personnel inserts and switches. The only thing that bothers me in this loss, more than anything, isn't the loss itself but the fact that our game plan played into the strengths of the opposition and it was a well-documented opponent (not one everyone is still trying to figure out like us 2 years ago).

Golden post dude! Look no further than scheming and game planning. They seem to have broken every single rule/blueprint to beating Peyton. It's almost as if they received a phone call that said "this is Peyton's night, you will have yours at a later time". No conspiracy theory, but just baffled how the basics of understanding Peyton Manning's tendencies were ignored.

Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
Golden post dude! Look no further than scheming and game planning. They seem to have broken every single rule/blueprint to beating Peyton. It's almost as if they received a phone call that said "this is Peyton's night, you will have yours at a later time". No conspiracy theory, but just baffled how the basics of understanding Peyton Manning's tendencies were ignored.

Thanks. A perfect example is last year...apparently, only having two 1,000 yard receivers was not enough so HaRoman got a pass on their offensive philosophy and scheme. So Baalke, said "Two? Screw that...I'll get you FIVE!" And here we are with the same exact excuses...Crabtree now suddenly blows, VD can't catch, Johnson is our only reliable weapon, McDonald can't catch, nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat save for Lloyd once in a while, CK can't read defenses, OL sucks, etc. Come on. Enough! There are plenty of things a coaching staff can do to scheme away from these "known" weaknesses week-in, week-out.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Thanks. A perfect example is last year...apparently, only having two 1,000 yard receivers was not enough so HaRoman got a pass on their offensive philosophy and scheme. So Baalke, said "Two? Screw that...I'll get you FIVE!" And here we are with the same exact excuses...Crabtree now suddenly blows, VD can't catch, Johnson is our only reliable weapon, McDonald can't catch, nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat save for Lloyd once in a while, CK can't read defenses, OL sucks, etc. Come on. Enough! There are plenty of things a coaching staff can do to scheme away from these "known" weaknesses week-in, week-out.

Man are you a fly in my house? Or in my mind? I was just telling my brother (A Saints fan) that there are no excuses for some of the inept coaching by the 9ers this year. Where are the slip screens, wham plays, delays to neutralize teams pinning their ears back and daring Kaepernick to find the weakness? Or what about we dictate what we are going to give the QB and supplement it by shading a LB or safety to that zone or bringing an extra man to manufacture some pressure? Or maybe just maybe we could for once attack someone psychologically (like Peyton) and force him to dink and dunk until he gets impatient and give us 1....2....or maybe 3 and see how the game turns out. That would have been smart considering he was chasing a record last night.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Thanks. A perfect example is last year...apparently, only having two 1,000 yard receivers was not enough so HaRoman got a pass on their offensive philosophy and scheme. So Baalke, said "Two? Screw that...I'll get you FIVE!" And here we are with the same exact excuses...Crabtree now suddenly blows, VD can't catch, Johnson is our only reliable weapon, McDonald can't catch, nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat save for Lloyd once in a while, CK can't read defenses, OL sucks, etc. Come on. Enough! There are plenty of things a coaching staff can do to scheme away from these "known" weaknesses week-in, week-out.

Well, if "Crabtree now suddenly blows", "VD can't catch", "McDonald can't catch", "nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat", "CK can't read defenses" and the "OL sucks" all at the same time, no, there is not anything the coaching staff can do to "scheme away" from these "'known' weaknesses". You can scheme around a known weakness but not 5.

Even if you think Fangio did not have the perfect game plan, it is difficult to criticize when for the entirety of the season, he has been game planning around "known weaknesses", most of which are the result of injuries to starters. On a short week, how are you supposed to scheme around not having 3/4 of the best LB crew in the NFL, one starting CB and you nickel DB (which against the Broncos is essentially a starting player). And, that doesn't even count anticipating Culliver playing and expecting Brock to come back after the bye week, only to find out late in the week that Culliver is also out and Brock is going to have to play after being out since the first half of game 1.

You might be able to do something drastically different if you had a veteran defense with all of its pieces that you knew could make changes on short notice without having breakdowns and miscommunications. That wasn't last night with Borland making his first start, Wilhoite calling the defensive signals for the first time, the secondary shuffling to deal with the injuries to Culliver and Ward, its on the road on a short week and you're facing Manning who is historically good at his pre-snap reads and putting his offense in the right play, not to mention that, in contrast to the 49ers defense, he had all of his receivers healthy.

Given the injuries and suspensions, Fangio had "schemed" the 49ers defense to a top rating and despite the difficulties faced, the 49ers stopped the Broncos on the first possession of the 2nd half, the offense had the ball after scoring on 2 consecutive 80 yard drives (both of which could have been TD's if Boldin doesn't drop the walk in TD) and Kap playing well under the circumstances. If the take it and score again, its probably a different game. Instead, Kap makes a bad read and throw for the INT and it snowballs from there.

At some point, you can't scheme around everything. Players have to play well to win and you are more likely to get that when you best players are available. The 49ers have admirable depth, but there still is a significant drop-off when you have whole units of injured (egs. LB's, CB's, OL).

Originally posted by kem99:

Well, if "Crabtree now suddenly blows", "VD can't catch", "McDonald can't catch", "nobody has deep speed or is a legit threat", "CK can't read defenses" and the "OL sucks" all at the same time, no, there is not anything the coaching staff can do to "scheme away" from these "'known' weaknesses". You can scheme around a known weakness but not 5.

Even if you think Fangio did not have the perfect game plan, it is difficult to criticize when for the entirety of the season, he has been game planning around "known weaknesses", most of which are the result of injuries to starters. On a short week, how are you supposed to scheme around not having 3/4 of the best LB crew in the NFL, one starting CB and you nickel DB (which against the Broncos is essentially a starting player). And, that doesn't even count anticipating Culliver playing and expecting Brock to come back after the bye week, only to find out late in the week that Culliver is also out and Brock is going to have to play after being out since the first half of game 1.

You might be able to do something drastically different if you had a veteran defense with all of its pieces that you knew could make changes on short notice without having breakdowns and miscommunications. That wasn't last night with Borland making his first start, Wilhoite calling the defensive signals for the first time, the secondary shuffling to deal with the injuries to Culliver and Ward, its on the road on a short week and you're facing Manning who is historically good at his pre-snap reads and putting his offense in the right play, not to mention that, in contrast to the 49ers defense, he had all of his receivers healthy.

Given the injuries and suspensions, Fangio had "schemed" the 49ers defense to a top rating and despite the difficulties faced, the 49ers stopped the Broncos on the first possession of the 2nd half, the offense had the ball after scoring on 2 consecutive 80 yard drives (both of which could have been TD's if Boldin doesn't drop the walk in TD) and Kap playing well under the circumstances. If the take it and score again, its probably a different game. Instead, Kap makes a bad read and throw for the INT and it snowballs from there.

At some point, you can't scheme around everything. Players have to play well to win and you are more likely to get that when you best players are available. The 49ers have admirable depth, but there still is a significant drop-off when you have whole units of injured (egs. LB's, CB's, OL).

From a personnel standpoint with everybody healthy we may not have been formidable at the DB position, so by your logic we throw the towel in? We cannot be paper champs just for the simple fact that their WILL be injuries in which you will have to scheme against. Last night our staff did not do a good job at putting players in a good position to win the game. Starters or no starters. For instance, did you really think Borland would make veteran decisions in his zones with the patience and understanding that Peyton will target him and that he may need to increase or decrease his depth in coverages depending on the situation? I hope not! So how do you counter that factor? Being that he is a mismatch in the middle of the field you scheme gaps and holes and allow him to be the 5 the man in your pass rush from time to time that way your weak link can hide and contribute in keeping Peyton off balance. I saw nothing of equal or similar strategy. You cant defend that fact.

Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.