"Scheme Fit" vs. Football Players

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

All I know is that all you guys that love to argue and co-sign ever move the FO makes have literally been wrong at ever turn, going all the way back on how good Tomsula could be...

Literally all the know it all's have been wrong, but they are just like good attorneys. They can get a guilty man off, even if the truth is plain to see.

Keep defending our non-football playing roster. Our defense is a afraid to hit. That's not a scheme fit for anyone.

Lol oh that's what it is...you're throwing out highlight examples (like Seattle) saying they drafted all of these studs yet only one was a 1st rd pick...if they were all football studs why did Sherman last until the 5th?

Our offense overall hasn't been an issue...the defense (which we all knew) wasn't gonna be good. They don't have all the pieces and they're playing very undisciplined football. I agree talent isn't there and the coaching on that side of the ball is and issue

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Lol oh that's what it is...you're throwing out highlight examples (like Seattle) saying they drafted all of these studs yet only one was a 1st rd pick...if they were all football studs why did Sherman last until the 5th?

Our offense overall hasn't been an issue...the defense (which we all knew) wasn't gonna be good. They don't have all the pieces and they're playing very undisciplined football. I agree talent isn't there and the coaching on that side of the ball is and issue

Its funny because one of the reasons Sherman was available in the 5th is that he was considered a more scheme-specific player. Big CB that lacked speed and suddenness, coincidentally he wound up in the perfect scheme for his ability and athleticism and had tremendous success.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
No. They drafted great football players. Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Bennett, Sherman and Kam would be great regardless of scheme. You just drank the koolaid.

Earl was the best single high FS in the draft...wait for it, that's one of the most important roles in Pete's scheme.

They never drafted Bennett he was a UDFA and played in Tampa....and sucked. He was a great scheme fit for Pete.

Earl made that scheme. There are many players and coaches (ahem..Saleh) that have made a living off of what we was able to do for that defense.

Originally posted by NinersFan52:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
No. They drafted great football players. Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Bennett, Sherman and Kam would be great regardless of scheme. You just drank the koolaid.

Bobby Wagner- drafted 2nd round
Michael Bennett- drafted 6th round
Richard Sherman- drafted 5th round
Kam Chancellor- drafted 5th round

Only Earl Thomas was drafted in the first round. If all these players were so obvious great "football players" why weren't they drafted higher? Is it bc you are just using hindsight for how they turned out as a reason to complain?

oh that's right, you can only draft good players in the first 2 rounds. after that, there's no chance of good players being available, only scheme fit players.

Originally posted by NinersFan52:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
No. They drafted great football players. Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Bennett, Sherman and Kam would be great regardless of scheme. You just drank the koolaid.

Bobby Wagner- drafted 2nd round
Michael Bennett- drafted 6th round
Richard Sherman- drafted 5th round
Kam Chancellor- drafted 5th round

Only Earl Thomas was drafted in the first round. If all these players were so obvious great "football players" why weren't they drafted higher? Is it bc you are just using hindsight for how they turned out as a reason to complain?

Bingo! This guy gets it!

Originally posted by TheGore49er:
oh that's right, you can only draft good players in the first 2 rounds. after that, there's no chance of good players being available, only scheme fit players.

The point is that they were far from being obvious great players. Sherman was very much considered a scheme-specific player. Seattle was running the perfect system for his abilities. Clearly they should have gone for a more talented CB earlier.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Lol oh that's what it is...you're throwing out highlight examples (like Seattle) saying they drafted all of these studs yet only one was a 1st rd pick...if they were all football studs why did Sherman last until the 5th?

Our offense overall hasn't been an issue...the defense (which we all knew) wasn't gonna be good. They don't have all the pieces and they're playing very undisciplined football. I agree talent isn't there and the coaching on that side of the ball is and issue

Its funny because one of the reasons Sherman was available in the 5th is that he was considered a more scheme-specific player. Big CB that lacked speed and suddenness, coincidentally he wound up in the perfect scheme for his ability and athleticism and had tremendous success.

Right weird he picked the same scheme to play in when he came to SF.

We want to point fingers at whomever for this team not all of a sudden being amazing, I get it. I do question some of the moves made and we as fans should be able to question them, but I think the whole drafting scheme over talent thing is so blown out of proportion. Every team drafting based on scheme and yes they wanted talented players.

Hey everybody, the sky is not falling. The team lost to a better team. They got beat on both sides of the ball in the 1st half, adjusted and improved in the 2nd. Patriots are down by 10 right now to the Lions we beat last week.

Had a bad 1st half lost Jimmy G. Rough week...

Chicken or the egg argument in a sense.

The teams that routinely draft well have a specific scheme and they draft guys who fit that scheme. When that happens you hit on a lot more you miss.

You can't control some things like injuries but guys like Nnamdi Asomugha should be a perfect example of scheme should win.

I'm sure back in his Oakland days everyone would say he was a "football player". He goes to Philly...was he now not a football player?

Clear direction in what you want from players helps coaches and players a like.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Who fit perfectly in their scheme. Carroll has talked about it, that they were targeting players with specific traits when building their defense. Every successful team does that. Carroll specifically described a 5 year plan that he had and the style of players he wanted on offense and defense and that is the approach that they took when developing their draft boards.

This.

Oakland, do you remember Asomugha? With the Raiders, he was considered one of the best corners in the league. With the Eagles, he sucked. Iirc, the Eagles run a zone scheme, whereas he was predominantly man on man in Oakland.

In general, there is absolutely no room for discussion. Any FO is checking the prospects for scheme feasibility.
This is true for soccer as well. You don't line up Özil (behind your striker) if your system is based on fast switch or counter attack rather than possession football. Sure, Özil would improve a counter-attacking team as well but players who fit better would be of greater help.

If I could retitle the thread I would. Obviously you need guys that can run your scheme. Just like obviously you need guys that can play football and have a base level of physical talent. My main gripe with this FO is that we seemed to be fixated on guys that meet certain measurable (like speed), rather than their ability to produce or football mentality. I get it, things like "heart" and "mentality" sound a little abstract and difficult to judge, but I think its very clear, we don't have a lot of foot ball players on our team.

This team just lacks a certain toughness and grit. It has nothing to do with age or being new. This kids have been taught to tackle their who life. If you don't know how to hit and wrap up by the NFL, its not a technique problem, its a mentality issue. It sounds funny, but I want players that are physical with an F.

Our Dline is full of big guys that cant play and our running backs are kept because they run a fast 40 (or so it seems). I just think KS has had a vision of a bunch of fast, athletic guys running around executing his offense and defense, but its been at the expense of finding real talent. Its like getting married to someone thinking you can change them. Total bust.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
I understand the concept of scheme fit, but at the end of the day I'd much rather have football players. Sure, if you have the choice of two prospects that have shown they can play at a high level and one seems to be more of the fit, then you grab the fit. However, that's not what's happening . This FO is the problem. Kyle has a vision of fielding a team full of fast, athletic, players. The problem is, most of them have not proven to be great football players. Though he's more sophisticated, he's kind of taken the Al Davis approach looking for the guy that wows your stop watch. You don't believe me, look at who we drafted and bring in at free agency. Its a bunch of guys that ran fast at the combine, but didn't show much on the field. Why do you think we got them in later rounds or undrafted?

Give me football players. You really think successful coaches look for scheme guys and build the team? You think the Super Bowl winning Seahawks and the legion of Boom drafted scheme? No, they drafted talent. The same thing with the 2012/13 Niners. You look for talent, and if your lucky enough, you get a handful of good "football players" you can scheme around. Great coaches scheme around talent, not the other way around. Sure there might be certain metrics that you prefer, "long levers," or tall "cbs." But that's only after they have proven they can play in college or the NFL. The NFL is hyper competitive and turnover is frequent. It you're waiting for the "perfect roster" to run your scheme, you wont last long.

Look at our DBs. You really think just putting a bunch of fast guys out there is a receipt for success? Not at all. There are so many intangibles, that metrics should be a far second. Results matter in the NFL. What the "slower player" might not have in speed, he might make up in play diagnosis and instinct. As you see, many of our players speed and strength is completely nullified by their low football IQ or lack of doggedness. I'm sick of watching a bunch of athletic fast guys get blown out of the whole or miss a tackle because they hate contact. While you need a certain level of skill to compete in the NFL, you also need the mentality. Look no further than our Dline. Full of physical talent, void of real football skills. They are better suited for the WWE than the NFL.

I'm confused. I think we've had a problem with drafting raw talent instead of scheme fit. ST was a talent pick, not a scheme pick. And this off-season we totally disregarded the pressing need for a Leo, i.e., scheme-based need.

On the other side, we have prioritized scheme over talent. A guy like McKinnon is a player we over-value versus the rest of the NFL because of KS's scheme. But we won't get to see how that pans out this year. Similarly, Trent Brown is a pretty good Tackle in the NFL, but doesn't fit KS's scheme, so we trade him for a draft pick; now he protects Tom Brady's blind side.

Re: our DBs. I don't think it's been a philosophical problem about the kind of players we want. It's simply that we haven't brought in enough legit players to build a quality secondary. You can only add so many new guys per off-season. Plus we're relying heavily on inexperienced 2nd-year players in Key and AC. So we should show improvement there over time. Moore is also a guy that embodies scheme fit + raw talent, but is basically a red-shirt rookie learning a new position.

Overall, I see the FO having a balanced approach on talent vs. scheme. The problem is simply that we still don't have enough talent 53-men deep to contend, especially when the injury bug is out in force. Maybe one more season of unabashed rebuilding will prove to be a good thing in the long run.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

If I could retitle the thread I would. Obviously you need guys that can run your scheme. Just like obviously you need guys that can play football and have a base level of physical talent. My main gripe with this FO is that we seemed to be fixated on guys that meet certain measurable (like speed), rather than their ability to produce or football mentality. I get it, things like "heart" and "mentality" sound a little abstract and difficult to judge, but I think its very clear, we don't have a lot of foot ball players on our team.

This team just lacks a certain toughness and grit. It has nothing to do with age or being new. This kids have been taught to tackle their who life. If you don't know how to hit and wrap up by the NFL, its not a technique problem, its a mentality issue. It sounds funny, but I want players that are physical with an F.

Our Dline is full of big guys that cant play and our running backs are kept because they run a fast 40 (or so it seems). I just think KS has had a vision of a bunch of fast, athletic guys running around executing his offense and defense, but its been at the expense of finding real talent. Its like getting married to someone thinking you can change them. Total bust.

There's a lot of truth in what Oakland wrote. The scheme fit vs football players(good ones) is finally starting to get to me. Yes we have fast. yes we have ZBS. Yes we have a bunch of big guys on the DL...but do we have real football players, instead of guys who fit the scheme. I thot initially it helped fill out an OL but now, i am not so sure. It is just as hard to draft a scheme fit as it is a big 320 lb OG.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by TheGore49er:
oh that's right, you can only draft good players in the first 2 rounds. after that, there's no chance of good players being available, only scheme fit players.

The point is that they were far from being obvious great players. Sherman was very much considered a scheme-specific player. Seattle was running the perfect system for his abilities. Clearly they should have gone for a more talented CB earlier.

Sherman was a gamble in a sense. He was a WR for most of his HS/College career, until the last 2 years. He was a big, and had good hands, smart, and showed passion for the game. And it's not like SEA was the only team in the league to run a Cover 3. He was a late round pick because of his 40 time for the most part, and didn't play CB that long.

Would Sherman still be a all-pro, and a possible HOF player if he was in a different scheme, and he had to play more man to man? Probably not, but he still would've been a good player. He would've gotten beat a couple times, but he would've gotten you picks and can tackle. When he gets targeted, he has WR hands. All it takes is for the QB to make a throw that is behind the receiver and he picks it off.

They didn't go for just scheme, I'm sure there were other players who fit their schemes but they passed on them. We have a lot of players (especially on defense) that fit this scheme, and yet are not good. Is that because our coaches or bad, or maybe the players just aren't that good? You can draft for scheme, and home to get your Bennet or Cambell, but instead you might get AA or Thomas. Instead of taking the 6'1 250 lb edge rusher who's doing great (TJ Watt for example)

That last sentence should be enough to say that, players > scheme. Maybe not by a lot, 60/40 to be fair, but you're better off getting football players than scheme players. Unless you are just that amazing of a coach and have this "unbeatable" scheme.

Just look at our 3-4 D-linemen trying to play a 4-3 scheme now.