Malcolm Smith, LB

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by toppdogg32:

Originally posted by pdizo916:

I have a funny gut feeling that this guy will fkn ball. My favorite FA signing along with Hoyer.

I think he will too. He can play all 3 LB positions, and be our 1st. guy off the bench at worse.

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

I don't get it... this BS started from a dumb article that didn't even know the full contract details. Anyways, smith will be fine.

Yeah, people saw 5yr $26.5M and freaked out, when the last 2 years are option years, and they can get out in 2018 with a Post June 1 cut.

I think Smith will be fine, he knows the system, it's not like we are only going to use 3 LBs a game, we need to have good LBs, if it means Smith, Bow, Foster, Brooks are our main 4, then so be it.

Yep. I want Smith and Brooks to man and rotate at the SAM position and Bow and Foster to never leave the field. Whatever the case, our backers are 100000X better than last year

SAM will be handled by Brooks but Harold,Watson got a shot and maybe even Elvis/Lynch in certain packages.

We might play some "over" fronts but as some of the knowledged have said(Heroism comes to mind for me) said it takes time before going there to play a smaller backer on the strong side.

You mean the side he played in Seattle when our defensive coordinator was there with him?

He backed up both positions and made starts at the WILL in SEA. He is not a SAM

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by toppdogg32:

Originally posted by pdizo916:

I have a funny gut feeling that this guy will fkn ball. My favorite FA signing along with Hoyer.

I think he will too. He can play all 3 LB positions, and be our 1st. guy off the bench at worse.

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

I don't get it... this BS started from a dumb article that didn't even know the full contract details. Anyways, smith will be fine.

Yeah, people saw 5yr $26.5M and freaked out, when the last 2 years are option years, and they can get out in 2018 with a Post June 1 cut.

I think Smith will be fine, he knows the system, it's not like we are only going to use 3 LBs a game, we need to have good LBs, if it means Smith, Bow, Foster, Brooks are our main 4, then so be it.

Yep. I want Smith and Brooks to man and rotate at the SAM position and Bow and Foster to never leave the field. Whatever the case, our backers are 100000X better than last year

SAM will be handled by Brooks but Harold,Watson got a shot and maybe even Elvis/Lynch in certain packages.

We might play some "over" fronts but as some of the knowledged have said(Heroism comes to mind for me) said it takes time before going there to play a smaller backer on the strong side.

You mean the side he played in Seattle when our defensive coordinator was there with him?

He backed up both positions and made starts at the WILL in SEA. He is not a SAM

Thanks. Look up over fronts.. Thats when you can have a smaller backer on the strong side.

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
i hate this guy. can we just cut him plz? k,thx

Our DC seems to like him...in recent interviews gave him great reviews for the work he did this spring.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
i hate this guy. can we just cut him plz? k,thx

Our DC seems to like him...in recent interviews gave him great reviews for the work he did this spring.

overpaid for mid tier talent. we will see. if bowman can not make it and the kids shoulder does not hold up. we are right back to where we were last year

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by ChazBoner:

i hate this guy. can we just cut him plz? k,thx

Our DC seems to like him...in recent interviews gave him great reviews for the work he did this spring.

overpaid for mid tier talent. we will see. if bowman can not make it and the kids shoulder does not hold up. we are right back to where we were last year

Above average talent for this scheme in particular. But even if he doesn't win a starting spot, I'd happily take him over Wilhoite and, well, you know...

Originally posted by NCommand:
Above average talent for this scheme in particular. But even if he doesn't win a starting spot, I'd happily take him over Wilhoite and, well, you know...

agree. so much trash we had to dump.

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Above average talent for this scheme in particular. But even if he doesn't win a starting spot, I'd happily take him over Wilhoite and, well, you know...

agree. so much trash we had to dump.

Michael Wilhoite & Nick Bellore were the two worst ILB's I've ever seen!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by cciowa:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Above average talent for this scheme in particular. But even if he doesn't win a starting spot, I'd happily take him over Wilhoite and, well, you know...

agree. so much trash we had to dump.

Michael Wilhoite & Nick Bellore were the two worst ILB's I've ever seen!

made jim maxwell look like dave wilcox

Originally posted by cciowa:

made jim maxwell look like dave wilcox

Haha...true!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by cciowa:
made jim maxwell look like dave wilcox

Haha...true!

only old school niner fans know what the flip we are talking about

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
i hate this guy. can we just cut him plz? k,thx

rayray better

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by toppdogg32:

Originally posted by pdizo916:
I have a funny gut feeling that this guy will fkn ball. My favorite FA signing along with Hoyer.

I think he will too. He can play all 3 LB positions, and be our 1st. guy off the bench at worse.

Originally posted by AB81Rules:

Originally posted by SmokeCrabtrees:
I don't get it... this BS started from a dumb article that didn't even know the full contract details. Anyways, smith will be fine.

Yeah, people saw 5yr $26.5M and freaked out, when the last 2 years are option years, and they can get out in 2018 with a Post June 1 cut.

I think Smith will be fine, he knows the system, it's not like we are only going to use 3 LBs a game, we need to have good LBs, if it means Smith, Bow, Foster, Brooks are our main 4, then so be it.

Yep. I want Smith and Brooks to man and rotate at the SAM position and Bow and Foster to never leave the field. Whatever the case, our backers are 100000X better than last year

SAM will be handled by Brooks but Harold,Watson got a shot and maybe even Elvis/Lynch in certain packages.

We might play some "over" fronts but as some of the knowledged have said(Heroism comes to mind for me) said it takes time before going there to play a smaller backer on the strong side.

You mean the side he played in Seattle when our defensive coordinator was there with him?

He backed up both positions and made starts at the WILL in SEA. He is not a SAM

Thanks. Look up over fronts.. Thats when you can have a smaller backer on the strong side.

True, true. But there is a marked difference between the "under" and "over" fronts. While you can have a 'smaller" backer for your SAM it's still not the best idea. He's most likely going to be taking on a lead blocker of some kind. Whether or not it's a lineman moving to the 2nd level, FB/UB, or a TE the offense will have numbers to that side and your SAM will be taking on a filling role. The best way to describe it for those of us in recent memory would be the "TED" LB in a 3-4 defense from what Fangio ran. If we ran a "over" front I'd put either Foster or Bow at the SAM and still have Smith at the WILL.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
True, true. But there is a marked difference between the "under" and "over" fronts. While you can have a 'smaller" backer for your SAM it's still not the best idea. He's most likely going to be taking on a lead blocker of some kind. Whether or not it's a lineman moving to the 2nd level, FB/UB, or a TE the offense will have numbers to that side and your SAM will be taking on a filling role. The best way to describe it for those of us in recent memory would be the "TED" LB in a 3-4 defense from what Fangio ran. If we ran a "over" front I'd put either Foster or Bow at the SAM and still have Smith at the WILL.

Sometimes when the smaller LB lines up at Sam, it's to account for the offense shifting and motioning, causing the strongside of the offensive formation to shift. A DC might purposely place his smaller LB (the typical Will) on the strongside of an Over front so that if the offense motions to flip the strongside, the defense can change to an Under front without going through a fire drill and having the front 7 scramble around pre-snap. That was confusing, I'll draw this up.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
True, true. But there is a marked difference between the "under" and "over" fronts. While you can have a 'smaller" backer for your SAM it's still not the best idea. He's most likely going to be taking on a lead blocker of some kind. Whether or not it's a lineman moving to the 2nd level, FB/UB, or a TE the offense will have numbers to that side and your SAM will be taking on a filling role. The best way to describe it for those of us in recent memory would be the "TED" LB in a 3-4 defense from what Fangio ran. If we ran a "over" front I'd put either Foster or Bow at the SAM and still have Smith at the WILL.

Sometimes when the smaller LB lines up at Sam, it's to account for the offense shifting and motioning, causing the strongside of the offensive formation to shift. A DC might purposely place his smaller LB (the typical Will) on the strongside of an Over front so that if the offense motions to flip the strongside, the defense can change to an Under front without going through a fire drill and having the front 7 scramble around pre-snap. That was confusing, I'll draw this up.

For sure, Fangio used to do that with Bow and Pwilly - at times. But, that's more gamesmanship and smoke and mirrors than LB roles.

It's the old, "I know that he knows that I know that he knows that I know"

Even if he doesn't start or loses the starting role

Having him ready to play is an ace in the hole.