Eric Mangini Thread

Baalke's guy....If Baalke stays then look for Mangini to get another shot at the HC position after the Tomsula experiment blows up.

I don't know if it was baalke or harbaugh that brought this guy around a few years back but since he's been around the team went to s**t. Not a surprise. Some coaches, although highly respected, bring a losing mentality. Ever since he was hired to help the offense prepare for defenses the offense went down, then coach te's who went down and then coach the defense who went down. HE NEEDS TO BE LONG GONE FROM THE ORGANIZATION!!!!

Originally posted by TexasGuero49:

Baalke's guy....If Baalke stays then look for Mangini to get another shot at the HC position after the Tomsula experiment blows up.

That is my nightmare scenario.

Why the hell was Eric Reid saying he didn't know who Thomas Rawls was before the game yesterday? You'd think these players have some knowledge and film study of all the opponents' personnel they could possibly be facing. I know they expected Lynch to play but they should be ready for anything. Isn't that bad preparation on the coaches' part?

What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

Originally posted by Joecool:
What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

200yds rushing. After that, every one of their receivers is elite. lol Especially when you can't-make-a -tackle.

Originally posted by Joecool:
What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

I'm guessing the mindset going in was to limit the deep bombs and tackle everything in front of them. Forcing SEA to dink and dunk down the field. Which sounds right on the whiteboard. They did limit the deep bombs (except for Lockett's TD), but they couldn't tackle anything.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by Joecool:
What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

200yds rushing. After that, every one of their receivers is elite. lol Especially when you can't-make-a -tackle.

Doesn't make sense. Their QB is having difficulty being consistent so we decide to umbrella back and let him play catch with the RB's and TE's and let them rush on us all they want. Everyone and their momma knows that run blitzes and forcing Wilson to throw a receiver open the way to beat them.

We f**ken did the exact opposite. f**ken Mangini. I know there were tackles missed but we did not play an aggressive game plan.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by Joecool:
What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

200yds rushing. After that, every one of their receivers is elite. lol Especially when you can't-make-a -tackle.

Doesn't make sense. Their QB is having difficulty being consistent so we decide to umbrella back and let him play catch with the RB's and TE's and let them rush on us all they want. Everyone and their momma knows that run blitzes and forcing Wilson to throw a receiver open the way to beat them.

We f**ken did the exact opposite. f**ken Mangini. I know there were tackles missed but we did not play an aggressive game plan.

It was pretty bad. Even when they got to Wilson they couldn't wrap up the guy. I know he's annoyingly squirrelly but c'mon. I think thl touched on Lockett as their speed guy, but I hate to think one guy with a TD scares the defense that much. It looked to me like just really bad tackling.

In Mangini's defense the niners don't get to the QB quickly enough to play tight coverage...especially against Wilson. He likely would have bought time and hit big plays.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by Joecool:
What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

200yds rushing. After that, every one of their receivers is elite. lol Especially when you can't-make-a -tackle.

Doesn't make sense. Their QB is having difficulty being consistent so we decide to umbrella back and let him play catch with the RB's and TE's and let them rush on us all they want. Everyone and their momma knows that run blitzes and forcing Wilson to throw a receiver open the way to beat them.

We f**ken did the exact opposite. f**ken Mangini. I know there were tackles missed but we did not play an aggressive game plan.

It was pretty bad. Even when they got to Wilson they couldn't wrap up the guy. I know he's annoyingly squirrelly but c'mon. I think thl touched on Lockett as their speed guy, but I hate to think one guy with a TD scares the defense that much. It looked to me like just really bad tackling.

I think the poor tackling is the primary reason Seattle had such a big day. Mangini's game plan really wasn't all bad. Players were typically in position to make a play and then there would be three whiffed tackles. Instead of getting a stop for a 1-2 yard gain, it would turn into a 7-8 yard gain. That creates a night and day difference in playcalling and game flow. Seattle does well when they're playing ahead of the down and distance. When they fall behind, that offense goes into shambles.

Some coaches have a mini TC on fundamental during the bye week (use to) but with the currant CBA it isn't done...? I don't normally believe in approach for a veteran team but the 9ers youth may have needed extra work. Tackling had been a strength...Acker, Tartt...a lot of young guys have done well up til now.

Originally posted by JoeBart324:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by Joecool:
What I don't understand is why were the underneath routes sooo open for SEA? When did they get an elite receiving corp that we need to pay so much attention to the point where the under routes were open by 10 yards?

Vs SEA, we should have played mostly man and run blitzing all day.

200yds rushing. After that, every one of their receivers is elite. lol Especially when you can't-make-a -tackle.

Doesn't make sense. Their QB is having difficulty being consistent so we decide to umbrella back and let him play catch with the RB's and TE's and let them rush on us all they want. Everyone and their momma knows that run blitzes and forcing Wilson to throw a receiver open the way to beat them.

We f**ken did the exact opposite. f**ken Mangini. I know there were tackles missed but we did not play an aggressive game plan.

It was pretty bad. Even when they got to Wilson they couldn't wrap up the guy. I know he's annoyingly squirrelly but c'mon. I think thl touched on Lockett as their speed guy, but I hate to think one guy with a TD scares the defense that much. It looked to me like just really bad tackling.

I think the poor tackling is the primary reason Seattle had such a big day. Mangini's game plan really wasn't all bad. Players were typically in position to make a play and then there would be three whiffed tackles. Instead of getting a stop for a 1-2 yard gain, it would turn into a 7-8 yard gain. That creates a night and day difference in playcalling and game flow. Seattle does well when they're playing ahead of the down and distance. When they fall behind, that offense goes into shambles.

I agree that tackling was the primary reason SEA's offense racked up so many yards. It wasn't the gameplan, it was the execution. They played zone to get all eyes on the ball and gang tackle. They couldn't tackle.

SEA's offense isn't consistent enough to move the ball down the field 6-8 yards at a time. They like to run the ball then hit chunk plays. The 49ers wanted to force SEA to string together extended drives. So they played zone, and they played back (soft). Force RW to dink and dunk, then rally to the ball. As far as passing defense, that's a sound gameplan, but those dinks and dunks become chunks with bad tackling. Couple that with bad run defense and everything looks bad. Not sure why the run defense was so bad. Tackling was a factor, but there were lanes too.

Originally posted by thl408:

I'm guessing the mindset going in was to limit the deep bombs and tackle everything in front of them. Forcing SEA to dink and dunk down the field. Which sounds right on the whiteboard. They did limit the deep bombs (except for Lockett's TD), but they couldn't tackle anything.

Stop beating to points I want to make!

Tackling so bad it almost makes you want Singletary to show them how it's done. At least we could tackle under "pants dropper" singletary