Eric Mangini Thread

Originally posted by 951NINER:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Fangio had Culliver AND Cox, he also had Chris Borland who was also a quiet leader on the defense but lead with his play on the field. Let's not forget Fangio had a solid run defender on the D-line in Ray Mac.

That is a lot of talent on the defense that has left.

Btw Perrish Cox played a solid game yesterday, mirroring receivers and coming up with a INT, can't say the same for Brock or any of the DB's mirroring receivers.

I've always said we should have kept Cox and/or Cully. At least one.

It's hard because at the time, the cap was tight and they chose to add Torrey Smith. It wasn't until Justin, ADavis, Aldon, Dockett left the team that cap was freed up.

Originally posted by Pigsfly1stclass:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Pigsfly1stclass:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
I can't really blame Mangini for this loss, if anything he has all the excuses in the world to not have a good season. He won't give those excuses I'm pretty sure of so I will:

Losing Aldon Smith really put a dent in his plans.

Losing Willis and Borland set the defense back a bit more.

Having two outta three players mentioned would transform this defense pretty much back to it's old self.

I really wish they would bring in Dwight Freeney, this defense needs a spark.

c'mon dude! Fangio had the same problem last year and we still finished top 5! Those excuses are BS it's part of the business. Just look at Mangini's track record of coaching to see how his defenses really fared. He sucked in NE when he was the DC for one season and he never improved.

Fangio had Culliver AND Cox, he also had Chris Borland who was also a quiet leader on the defense but lead with his play on the field. Let's not forget Fangio had a solid run defender on the D-line in Ray Mac.

That is a lot of talent on the defense that has left.

Btw Perrish Cox played a solid game yesterday, mirroring receivers and coming up with a INT, can't say the same for Brock or any of the DB's mirroring receivers.

Cully sucks and it show every week in Washington,Cox is solid but so is Brock in man coverage. Our corners aren't the problem it's the scheme. His scheme doesn't fit our personnel. Ray Mac and everyone you mentioned missed games for us last year and we still finished top 5. If you need further proof look at the Bears defense now versus last year. FANGIO.

I never really liked Cully. He was never the kind of guy that made great plays like Carlos Rogers did in his first year here or like Brown did occasionally (remember that crazy pick against the Saints in the playoffs? Can't see Cully ever making a play like that). WR's just seemed to drop a lot of tough but catchable balls around him and that made him look better than he really was.

Brock was making tons of plays (the two picks against Andre Johnson or the Bowman pick6 against ATL in the last candlestick game) to get his contract. Cully just rode the wave.

I agree and would've kept Cox. They guy developed right in front of us and they just let him walk. I was fine with Culliver walking. It's a talent and scheme issue. folks are getting caught trying to blame it all on one person when it's enough f**king up to go around. Is scheme stopping Brooks or any d lineman from getting some pressure? Scheme isn't stopping guys from batting down some passes or letting guys run right by you when you supposed to bump them at the line. That's just the players not getting it done. Folks being confused and totally out of position is on the coach.

Originally posted by lamontb:

I agree and would've kept Cox. They guy developed right in front of us and they just let him walk. I was fine with Culliver walking. It's a talent and scheme issue. folks are getting caught trying to blame it all on one person when it's enough f**king up to go around. Is scheme stopping Brooks or any d lineman from getting some pressure? Scheme isn't stopping guys from batting down some passes or letting guys run right by you when you supposed to bump them at the line. That's just the players not getting it done. Folks being confused and totally out of position is on the coach.

Yea, have to say I agree. No idea why we let Cox walk. If we would've kept him in over Rogers two years ago, we would've likely had a sixth ring by now.

i see what Mangini was trying to do...have all the Wide Out run free...QB is not used to it...he gets confused...Brilliant!!!

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by 951NINER:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Fangio had Culliver AND Cox, he also had Chris Borland who was also a quiet leader on the defense but lead with his play on the field. Let's not forget Fangio had a solid run defender on the D-line in Ray Mac.

That is a lot of talent on the defense that has left.

Btw Perrish Cox played a solid game yesterday, mirroring receivers and coming up with a INT, can't say the same for Brock or any of the DB's mirroring receivers.

I've always said we should have kept Cox and/or Cully. At least one.

It's hard because at the time, the cap was tight and they chose to add Torrey Smith. It wasn't until Justin, ADavis, Aldon, Dockett left the team that cap was freed up.

Yeah the post free agency stuff is what really screwed us. Just imagine if aldon, kilgore, and AD were on this team and playing.... We would probably be having a much different convo.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by 951NINER:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Fangio had Culliver AND Cox, he also had Chris Borland who was also a quiet leader on the defense but lead with his play on the field. Let's not forget Fangio had a solid run defender on the D-line in Ray Mac.

That is a lot of talent on the defense that has left.

Btw Perrish Cox played a solid game yesterday, mirroring receivers and coming up with a INT, can't say the same for Brock or any of the DB's mirroring receivers.

I've always said we should have kept Cox and/or Cully. At least one.

It's hard because at the time, the cap was tight and they chose to add Torrey Smith. It wasn't until Justin, ADavis, Aldon, Dockett left the team that cap was freed up.

Good context!

Originally posted by NinerGM:
What in the sam hell?

After three games, the 49ers' top pass rusher, Ahmad Brooks, has no sacks. Their second-best pass rusher, Aaron Lynch, has one sack. One of the problems is that the outside linebackers have more coverage duties than they did in Vic Fangio's defense. That is, they're not always rushing the passer.

Sometimes they even are being asked to cover slot receivers one on one, which Brooks had to do against Larry Fitzgerald in the first quarter. Obvious result: 14-yard gain by Fitzgerald and a Cardinals first down. On those plays, the 49ers typically bring an odd blitzer -- a safety or a cornerback. The problem the last two games is that those blitzers aren't getting to the quarterback before he sees the mismatch. To their credit the 49ers did less of this in the second half Sunday. Brooks was credited with one quarterback hit.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article36920220.html#storylink=cpy

This is obvious and was predicted. Mangini's philosophy is more about disguising than it is sending more rushers than blockers. We would rather fake our S blitz and try to make him sprint back the same distance the receiver is running his route AND expect him to beat the receiver there.

We would rather blitz a S and send Lynch, Whilhoite or Brooks trying to cover WR's.

Mangini has minimized the talent on this defense. We have two of the leagues higher end edge rushers and are not using them. We have a rookie DL and other veteran DL that can push the pocket but Mangini refuses to let them do what they are good at.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
What in the sam hell?

After three games, the 49ers' top pass rusher, Ahmad Brooks, has no sacks. Their second-best pass rusher, Aaron Lynch, has one sack. One of the problems is that the outside linebackers have more coverage duties than they did in Vic Fangio's defense. That is, they're not always rushing the passer.

Sometimes they even are being asked to cover slot receivers one on one, which Brooks had to do against Larry Fitzgerald in the first quarter. Obvious result: 14-yard gain by Fitzgerald and a Cardinals first down. On those plays, the 49ers typically bring an odd blitzer -- a safety or a cornerback. The problem the last two games is that those blitzers aren't getting to the quarterback before he sees the mismatch. To their credit the 49ers did less of this in the second half Sunday. Brooks was credited with one quarterback hit.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article36920220.html#storylink=cpy

Another exhibit of a bad scheme.

Guess those 3 years of screwing up offense set him up nicely to learn how to screw up defense.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
What in the sam hell?

After three games, the 49ers' top pass rusher, Ahmad Brooks, has no sacks. Their second-best pass rusher, Aaron Lynch, has one sack. One of the problems is that the outside linebackers have more coverage duties than they did in Vic Fangio's defense. That is, they're not always rushing the passer.

Sometimes they even are being asked to cover slot receivers one on one, which Brooks had to do against Larry Fitzgerald in the first quarter. Obvious result: 14-yard gain by Fitzgerald and a Cardinals first down. On those plays, the 49ers typically bring an odd blitzer -- a safety or a cornerback. The problem the last two games is that those blitzers aren't getting to the quarterback before he sees the mismatch. To their credit the 49ers did less of this in the second half Sunday. Brooks was credited with one quarterback hit.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article36920220.html#storylink=cpy

just further evidence that this guy is trying to be too cute with his schemes. this is freaking ridiculous. i am not a football mind by any means, but i literally have no idea what this guy is doing with this defense. you are blitzing your safeties and/or putting them up close to the line, further leaving the secondary exposed.....while having your 2 best pass rushers dropping into coverage and guarding slot guys. no wonder this guy gets canned everywhere he goes.

He needs to stop playing Zone Coverage against these top QBs. The pass rush is not there for it to work effectively. Also needs to stop the 3 man rush and zone coverage. because a QB with all the time in the world will find the soft spot in the zone.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

What in the sam hell?

After three games, the 49ers' top pass rusher, Ahmad Brooks, has no sacks. Their second-best pass rusher, Aaron Lynch, has one sack. One of the problems is that the outside linebackers have more coverage duties than they did in Vic Fangio's defense. That is, they're not always rushing the passer.

Sometimes they even are being asked to cover slot receivers one on one, which Brooks had to do against Larry Fitzgerald in the first quarter. Obvious result: 14-yard gain by Fitzgerald and a Cardinals first down. On those plays, the 49ers typically bring an odd blitzer -- a safety or a cornerback. The problem the last two games is that those blitzers aren't getting to the quarterback before he sees the mismatch. To their credit the 49ers did less of this in the second half Sunday. Brooks was credited with one quarterback hit.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article36920220.html#storylink=cpy

just further evidence that this guy is trying to be too cute with his schemes. this is freaking ridiculous. i am not a football mind by any means, but i literally have no idea what this guy is doing with this defense. you are blitzing your safeties and/or putting them up close to the line, further leaving the secondary exposed.....while having your 2 best pass rushers dropping into coverage and guarding slot guys. no wonder this guy gets canned everywhere he goes.

Can we just get away from the "cute" stuff and get back to football 101. That stuffed worked week one against a young qb but big Ben and Palmer tore right through this Mangini scheme. How about we play our safeties back and send our best two pass rushers after the qb. Like I said basic football 101. Mangini is starting to feel like the Greg Roman of defense.

Hated the initial hire/promotion....hate it even more now!

Originally posted by SFrush:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
What in the sam hell?

After three games, the 49ers' top pass rusher, Ahmad Brooks, has no sacks. Their second-best pass rusher, Aaron Lynch, has one sack. One of the problems is that the outside linebackers have more coverage duties than they did in Vic Fangio's defense. That is, they're not always rushing the passer.

Sometimes they even are being asked to cover slot receivers one on one, which Brooks had to do against Larry Fitzgerald in the first quarter. Obvious result: 14-yard gain by Fitzgerald and a Cardinals first down. On those plays, the 49ers typically bring an odd blitzer -- a safety or a cornerback. The problem the last two games is that those blitzers aren't getting to the quarterback before he sees the mismatch. To their credit the 49ers did less of this in the second half Sunday. Brooks was credited with one quarterback hit.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/article36920220.html#storylink=cpy

Another exhibit of a bad scheme.

What in the f**k.