DeMeco Ryans, Texans HC

Originally posted by Giedi:
Blind side sacks cause interceptions and turnovers. The Al Davis defense is focused on those kinds of turnovers, and specifically focuses on the blind side rush hitting the QB and causing mistakes and turnovers as the QB was getting ready to throw. The great raider DEs Lyle Alzado, Howie Long etc... were to hit the QB and cause turnovers. That was the Raider defensive philosophy. Win the turnover battle, win the game. (Take away and keep away) The KC vs Brady game, Tampa won the turnover battle. The 49ers vs KC game, the turnovers (i think) were even. Again the refs allowed holding in our game and didn't in the Brady game.

There's the Raider defense that focuses on turnovers and there's the Tuna/Bellicheat defense that focuses on yardage. Usually Tuna's defenses focused on big fast physically dominating linebackers to stop the run and DLinemen that can hold ground (the old 3-4) systems with the DEs being more like DTs. Tuna liked a very big suffocating kind of defense, whereas the old Raider defenses were much faster (Al Davis was all about speed on both sides of the ball) but undersized, because they wanted to gang tackle and strip the ball from the ball carrier, and also play man (Lester "the molester" Hays) and intercept the pass, as well as speedy DEs that can hit the QB on his blind side.

Walsh was heavily influenced by Al, and Bellicheat learned under Parcells. Parcells played a field position game and mistake free football whereas Al and Walsh relied on their offense to possess and score and relied on their defense to feed the ball to their offenses.

Two totally different approaches to the game is my point. The pressures you are talking about revolves more around the tactical side, vs the strategic side. You can have tanks, but if your strategy is the Magiot Line, vs the Guderion blitzkrieg, you use your tanks differently from a tactical standpoint.

A sack cannot cause an interception, when the QB is sacked the play is dead. The blindside rush causing an interception is due to pressure not a sack.

And a blindside pass rush can be minimized by allowing the backs and edge to chip and help against the rush.

And yes TB won the turnover battle 2-0. One was a bad pass into double coverage and the other was a bad pass that the QB was forced to throw due to pressure from the rush, it resulted in a tight window throw that saw a tipped pass and the ball picked. The pass rush, in particular the constant pressure, never allowed KC to get comfortable and find a rhythm.

Walsh said it himself, a good pass rush does not have to get home but they do need to disrupt the timing and rhythm. The quote I posted earlier does not jive with the label you are putting on him and his philosophy. Can you back up your claims that Walsh didn't think sack statistics were/are overrated and with regards to his defensive philosophy?

Fans want the guy who gets home on all 25 pressures and finishes with 25 sacks. I prefer the guy who gets 12.5 sacks but had 98 pressures on the year because he is consistently proving to be much much more disruptive and consistently pushing the QB off of his spot.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by Giedi:
I'm still appalled by Saleh's comment about preferring pressures to sacks. Never been a big fan of his since then. I don't think Saleh morphed, as much as Kocurk and Kyle basically said we're installing the Wide 9 whether you (Saleh) like it or not.

To me, this is a Kocurek centered defense, and reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Ryan bear defenses. I've always been a fan of Buddy's high pressure defenses, and those go back to the George Perlas great steeler defenses of the past. I loved how Demeco/Kyle drafted a ton of DBs this year to bolster the Nickel. It reminds me a bit of the '81 draft with Lott and company.

Didn't Bellicheat say something similar In regards to pressure Vs sacks? . Pressures have an higher chance of causing turnovers as compared to sacks, which only Push the offense back afew yards or so.

You can view defensive philosophy as revolving around three main areas. Yardage/field position, points, or turnovers. To me, pressures more directly impacts yardage/field position philosophy more than a turnover philosophy.

Sacks on the other hand, goes with more of a turnover philosophy. Saleh (in my opinion) was confused where his philosophy was. It was caught in the middle - neither here nor there.

Demeco and Kocurek are on the same page and are full in on a turnover philosophy, which is what the old Cheat Carroll/Seifert 4-3 under defenses was all about. The only difference between the Siefert/Carroll defenses is the Wide 9 addition which basically commits the defense to stopping the pass first versus the old Seifert defenses which were more balanced.

Bellicheats defenses are a modern iteration of the old Tuna defenses under Bill Parcells which were focused more on a yardage philosophy.

From the mouth of BB himself :

"I think if you look at the overall passing game, the statistic that stands out the most in terms of correlation is pressure. So pressure on the quarterback leads to more bad plays than sacks do, in terms of turnovers unless you have strip sacks, obviously. That's the No. 1. After that, pressures cause bad throws and potentially turnovers."

Belichick noted that the pass rush comes down to team defense, tethering the production of the pass rush to the quality of coverage and vice versa. But his note about focusing on strip sacks and pressure while devaluing sacks is a unique insight. Sacks make players money, but they may not be tied to winning football games.

And he isn't alone. Pretty much any defensive coach will tell you they value pressures over sacks, that isn't to say they don't value sacks though. Every coach would prefer to get a sack on every play but that isn't going to happen but if you can at least generate pressure, you can disrupt the timing, rhythm and comfort of your opponent.

I would bet Kocurek and Ryan's also value pressures over sacks.

Packers OLB coach Mike Smith (who has been coaching one of the most consistent pass rushers in Z. Smith and has previously coached Dee Ford and Chris Jones in KC) ranted on this last season :

"I don't know what happened. A long time ago somebody — probably when they started recording sacks — fans, coaches, whoever, defined a great pass rusher, or an effective pass rusher, off of sacks. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. You define a great pass-rusher by consistency," Smith said.

A pass rusher who averages one sack a game would be an All-Pro, but Smith said a pass rusher who gets regular pressure, several times a game, does more to help his team win.

"You have to look how they are affecting the quarterback," Smith said. "When they are in the game, are they affecting the quarterback, with the pressures? Because sacks are important, don't get me wrong. . . . I care about pressure, affecting the quarterback, that's the No. 1 thing. I'll take a guy that does his job play after play after play after play, being consistent, and has zero sacks, but does his job and affects the quarterback."

Disagree. Win the turnover battle - you win the game. Thats the Raider defensive philosophy under Al Davis that Walsh won 4 super bowls under. Al's basic strategy was to take the ball away on defense--- and on offense keep it away. He didn't care about yardage or points, but sacks that creates **turnovers and interceptions.**

Bellicheat comes from the Bill Parcells school of thought where they focus on yardage and a stifling defense that gives your offense good field position to score and win games. Both Tuna and Bellicheat value execution and a conservative ball control offense and special teams to win **field position and the yardage yielded** game.

You can win super bowls with both philosophies, but the 49ers being on the west coast and under the same coaching philosophy that had its precursors under the old sid Gillman and *air Coryell* offense, that's the genetics where (i think) the shanahans are operating under. I think Saleh was never very clear where he stood on that spectrum and hence he never had a defense that was clear and solid in its aspects.

Sacks do not cause interceptions, pressures cause interceptions.

From the mouth of Bill Walsh :

"There are those defensive ends who can take a tackle back into the quarterback. They can be just as effective with that as a man who makes spectacular sacks once or twice a game. Something that is not given due credit too often is the player who can take that offensive lineman back to the quarterback. Everybody keeps waiting for the pass rusher to be past somebody and make a move, where in reality you can have an excellent pass rush and not sack anybody. You break his rhythm, force him to move out of the way of his own man."

The Chiefs just lost a SB where their QB was sacked only 3 times (we sacked him 4 times the year prior). But the offense couldn't muster more than 9 points or get off any real offense because the QB was the most pressured in SB history. Not allowing him to sit back and comfortably go through his progressions was what won Tampa this game. Mahomes even admitted the consistent barrage of pressure f'd them up, messing with the timing, rhythm and cohesion of that offense.

"I just think we weren't on the same page as an offense in general," Mahomes said. "I wasn't getting the ball out on time. The receivers were running routes not exactly where I thought they were going to be at. And the offensive line, they were good at some times and sometimes they let guys through. When you're playing a good defense like that, you have to be on the same page as an offense and we weren't today. And that's why we played so bad."

Blind side sacks cause interceptions and turnovers. The Al Davis defense is focused on those kinds of turnovers, and specifically focuses on the blind side rush hitting the QB and causing mistakes and turnovers as the QB was getting ready to throw. The great raider DEs Lyle Alzado, Howie Long etc... were to hit the QB and cause turnovers. That was the Raider defensive philosophy. Win the turnover battle, win the game. (Take away and keep away) The KC vs Brady game, Tampa won the turnover battle. The 49ers vs KC game, the turnovers (i think) were even. Again the refs allowed holding in our game and didn't in the Brady game.

There's the Raider defense that focuses on turnovers and there's the Tuna/Bellicheat defense that focuses on yardage. Usually Tuna's defenses focused on big fast physically dominating linebackers to stop the run and DLinemen that can hold ground (the old 3-4) systems with the DEs being more like DTs. Tuna liked a very big suffocating kind of defense, whereas the old Raider defenses were much faster (Al Davis was all about speed on both sides of the ball) but undersized, because they wanted to gang tackle and strip the ball from the ball carrier, and also play man (Lester "the molester" Hays) and intercept the pass, as well as speedy DEs that can hit the QB on his blind side.

Walsh was heavily influenced by Al, and Bellicheat learned under Parcells. Parcells played a field position game and mistake free football whereas Al and Walsh relied on their offense to possess and score and relied on their defense to feed the ball to their offenses.

Two totally different approaches to the game is my point. The pressures you are talking about revolves more around the tactical side, vs the strategic side. You can have tanks, but if your strategy is the Magiot Line, vs the Guderion blitzkrieg, you use your tanks differently from a tactical standpoint.

Interesting discussion. What do you mean with the bolded? Isn't 'tactical' and 'strategic' the same thing? When it comes to defensive strategy, I think there are two ends of the spectrum. One is a defense that looks to be the aggressor, using blitzes to generate pressure/turnovers. The other end is what we've referred to as 'bend don't break'.

I think what you described above with a 'defense that forces turnovers' is the aggressive defense I described above. And when you refer to a defense that 'plays the field position and mistake free football' is what's referred to as 'bend don't break'. Those are the two extremes. Most zone dominant defenses that don't blitz frequently are 'bend don't break', and this is what the 49ers have been under Saleh.

All DCs value sacks and turnovers, that's the ultimate goal for any single defensive snap. Some want to press the issue and take it to the offense by generating pressure. Some DCs think that over the course of a 12 play drive, the offense will make a mistake and that's when the defense capitalizes.

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I got to witness both of those pick 6's live. Great time!

When you try to run a screen but the pressure is so damn overwhelming that you hand Ahkello "I think I did something" Witherspoon a gimme pick-6. God damn, our DL was ferocious in 2019.

I knew it was going to be a special year and in person, it was obvious to me Tampa had legit talent across the board minus QB...when they got Brady, I knew they had a legit shot to win it all esp. when they took Wirfs > Kinlaw (hehe).

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I got to witness both of those pick 6's live. Great time!

When you try to run a screen but the pressure is so damn overwhelming that you hand Ahkello "I think I did something" Witherspoon a gimme pick-6. God damn, our DL was ferocious in 2019.

I knew it was going to be a special year and in person, it was obvious to me Tampa had legit talent across the board minus QB...when they got Brady, I knew they had a legit shot to win it all esp. when they took Wirfs > Kinlaw (hehe).

That's the reason Tampa was all in on signing Brady and why Brady was so willing to go to a team that doesn't have a great winning tradition. He looked at the roster and knew he would have better offensive weapons than he did at NE and a defense that would keep getting him the ball in decent field position.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by Giedi:
I'm still appalled by Saleh's comment about preferring pressures to sacks. Never been a big fan of his since then. I don't think Saleh morphed, as much as Kocurk and Kyle basically said we're installing the Wide 9 whether you (Saleh) like it or not.

To me, this is a Kocurek centered defense, and reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Ryan bear defenses. I've always been a fan of Buddy's high pressure defenses, and those go back to the George Perlas great steeler defenses of the past. I loved how Demeco/Kyle drafted a ton of DBs this year to bolster the Nickel. It reminds me a bit of the '81 draft with Lott and company.

Didn't Bellicheat say something similar In regards to pressure Vs sacks? . Pressures have an higher chance of causing turnovers as compared to sacks, which only Push the offense back afew yards or so.

You can view defensive philosophy as revolving around three main areas. Yardage/field position, points, or turnovers. To me, pressures more directly impacts yardage/field position philosophy more than a turnover philosophy.

Sacks on the other hand, goes with more of a turnover philosophy. Saleh (in my opinion) was confused where his philosophy was. It was caught in the middle - neither here nor there.

Demeco and Kocurek are on the same page and are full in on a turnover philosophy, which is what the old Cheat Carroll/Seifert 4-3 under defenses was all about. The only difference between the Siefert/Carroll defenses is the Wide 9 addition which basically commits the defense to stopping the pass first versus the old Seifert defenses which were more balanced.

Bellicheats defenses are a modern iteration of the old Tuna defenses under Bill Parcells which were focused more on a yardage philosophy.

From the mouth of BB himself :

"I think if you look at the overall passing game, the statistic that stands out the most in terms of correlation is pressure. So pressure on the quarterback leads to more bad plays than sacks do, in terms of turnovers unless you have strip sacks, obviously. That's the No. 1. After that, pressures cause bad throws and potentially turnovers."

Belichick noted that the pass rush comes down to team defense, tethering the production of the pass rush to the quality of coverage and vice versa. But his note about focusing on strip sacks and pressure while devaluing sacks is a unique insight. Sacks make players money, but they may not be tied to winning football games.

And he isn't alone. Pretty much any defensive coach will tell you they value pressures over sacks, that isn't to say they don't value sacks though. Every coach would prefer to get a sack on every play but that isn't going to happen but if you can at least generate pressure, you can disrupt the timing, rhythm and comfort of your opponent.

I would bet Kocurek and Ryan's also value pressures over sacks.

Packers OLB coach Mike Smith (who has been coaching one of the most consistent pass rushers in Z. Smith and has previously coached Dee Ford and Chris Jones in KC) ranted on this last season :

"I don't know what happened. A long time ago somebody — probably when they started recording sacks — fans, coaches, whoever, defined a great pass rusher, or an effective pass rusher, off of sacks. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. You define a great pass-rusher by consistency," Smith said.

A pass rusher who averages one sack a game would be an All-Pro, but Smith said a pass rusher who gets regular pressure, several times a game, does more to help his team win.

"You have to look how they are affecting the quarterback," Smith said. "When they are in the game, are they affecting the quarterback, with the pressures? Because sacks are important, don't get me wrong. . . . I care about pressure, affecting the quarterback, that's the No. 1 thing. I'll take a guy that does his job play after play after play after play, being consistent, and has zero sacks, but does his job and affects the quarterback."

Disagree. Win the turnover battle - you win the game. Thats the Raider defensive philosophy under Al Davis that Walsh won 4 super bowls under. Al's basic strategy was to take the ball away on defense--- and on offense keep it away. He didn't care about yardage or points, but sacks that creates **turnovers and interceptions.**

Bellicheat comes from the Bill Parcells school of thought where they focus on yardage and a stifling defense that gives your offense good field position to score and win games. Both Tuna and Bellicheat value execution and a conservative ball control offense and special teams to win **field position and the yardage yielded** game.

You can win super bowls with both philosophies, but the 49ers being on the west coast and under the same coaching philosophy that had its precursors under the old sid Gillman and *air Coryell* offense, that's the genetics where (i think) the shanahans are operating under. I think Saleh was never very clear where he stood on that spectrum and hence he never had a defense that was clear and solid in its aspects.

Sacks do not cause interceptions, pressures cause interceptions.

From the mouth of Bill Walsh :

"There are those defensive ends who can take a tackle back into the quarterback. They can be just as effective with that as a man who makes spectacular sacks once or twice a game. Something that is not given due credit too often is the player who can take that offensive lineman back to the quarterback. Everybody keeps waiting for the pass rusher to be past somebody and make a move, where in reality you can have an excellent pass rush and not sack anybody. You break his rhythm, force him to move out of the way of his own man."

The Chiefs just lost a SB where their QB was sacked only 3 times (we sacked him 4 times the year prior). But the offense couldn't muster more than 9 points or get off any real offense because the QB was the most pressured in SB history. Not allowing him to sit back and comfortably go through his progressions was what won Tampa this game. Mahomes even admitted the consistent barrage of pressure f'd them up, messing with the timing, rhythm and cohesion of that offense.

"I just think we weren't on the same page as an offense in general," Mahomes said. "I wasn't getting the ball out on time. The receivers were running routes not exactly where I thought they were going to be at. And the offensive line, they were good at some times and sometimes they let guys through. When you're playing a good defense like that, you have to be on the same page as an offense and we weren't today. And that's why we played so bad."

Blind side sacks cause interceptions and turnovers. The Al Davis defense is focused on those kinds of turnovers, and specifically focuses on the blind side rush hitting the QB and causing mistakes and turnovers as the QB was getting ready to throw. The great raider DEs Lyle Alzado, Howie Long etc... were to hit the QB and cause turnovers. That was the Raider defensive philosophy. Win the turnover battle, win the game. (Take away and keep away) The KC vs Brady game, Tampa won the turnover battle. The 49ers vs KC game, the turnovers (i think) were even. Again the refs allowed holding in our game and didn't in the Brady game.

There's the Raider defense that focuses on turnovers and there's the Tuna/Bellicheat defense that focuses on yardage. Usually Tuna's defenses focused on big fast physically dominating linebackers to stop the run and DLinemen that can hold ground (the old 3-4) systems with the DEs being more like DTs. Tuna liked a very big suffocating kind of defense, whereas the old Raider defenses were much faster (Al Davis was all about speed on both sides of the ball) but undersized, because they wanted to gang tackle and strip the ball from the ball carrier, and also play man (Lester "the molester" Hays) and intercept the pass, as well as speedy DEs that can hit the QB on his blind side.

Walsh was heavily influenced by Al, and Bellicheat learned under Parcells. Parcells played a field position game and mistake free football whereas Al and Walsh relied on their offense to possess and score and relied on their defense to feed the ball to their offenses.

Two totally different approaches to the game is my point. The pressures you are talking about revolves more around the tactical side, vs the strategic side. You can have tanks, but if your strategy is the Magiot Line, vs the Guderion blitzkrieg, you use your tanks differently from a tactical standpoint.

Interesting discussion. What do you mean with the bolded? Isn't 'tactical' and 'strategic' the same thing? When it comes to defensive strategy, I think there are two ends of the spectrum. One is a defense that looks to be the aggressor, using blitzes to generate pressure/turnovers. The other end is what we've referred to as 'bend don't break'.

I think what you described above with a 'defense that forces turnovers' is the aggressive defense I described above. And when you refer to a defense that 'plays the field position and mistake free football' is what's referred to as 'bend don't break'. Those are the two extremes. Most zone dominant defenses that don't blitz frequently are 'bend don't break', and this is what the 49ers have been under Saleh.

All DCs value sacks and turnovers, that's the ultimate goal for any single defensive snap. Some want to press the issue and take it to the offense by generating pressure. Some DCs think that over the course of a 12 play drive, the offense will make a mistake and that's when the defense capitalizes.

A quick and dirty example would be a defensive end like Bosa. Do you have him read and react, or do you ask him to stunt and dog and disrupt the backfield in the pass or run game? To a certain extent today, Bellicheats defenses are read-&-react, but Kocurek's defenses are not read and react. Charlie Sumner (Al's Old DC) basically ran a gap penetration nickel defense plus 7 defensive backs, similarly Seifert's elephant/Leo defenses were designed to kill the QB.

[Charlie] Sumner's "Pirate" defense, James Davis would play nickle as both inside linebackers would come off, and Greg Townsend would play left defensive end, Bill Pickell would play left defensive tackle and Howie Long would play right defensive tackle (usually a 3 technique) in this extremely effective set. When Alzado would get nicked or needed some air, Long would played right defensive end and Townsend or Pickell would played left defensive end. And to isolate Howie Long on the center, as the Bears Buddy Ryan would do with Dan Hampton, Long would play nose tackle in a 5-man line. In the 'Desparado" defense, it was the four best pass rushers and seven defensive backs on the field for the Raiders. ("Renegade was the dime or six-man secondary).
https://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/2015/04/charlie-sumner-his-place-in-resurgance.html

The 49ers had the "elephant" position – a player who generally lined up at defensive end and was designed to mainly rush the passer. The 49ers now have a derivative of the position called the "Leo."
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/george-seiferts-influence-felt-49ers-new-defensive-scheme

To a certain extent the *tactics* overlap whether you are playing an aggressive high pressure turnover defense or a yardage (so called bend-but-don't break) philosophy defense. (I wouldn't call the NY defenses with Lawrence Taylor - bend but don't break defenses, by the way) However, the various different types of 3-4 and the 4-3 defenses have the similar assignments on similar downs and distances. I think where they differ tactically (for example) is in the aggression (gap penetration vs read and react) and what players you draft/acquire. In terms of sacks -- Cassius Marsh had more success with the 49ers vs New England, Hyder also had more success with Kocurek vs other systems. In other words, Seiferts/Walsh defenses were designed to get to the QB and cause problems, and drafted/got Fred Dean and Haley. (some more examples - Dee Ford/Bosa) To a certain extent Belicheat has modernized the old Parcells defense for the 21st century, but he still doesn't seem to have that same focus on the defensive line that Seifert/Walsh/Kyle has. Belicheat seems to focus more on the secondary with the current NFL fast break offenses, vs getting to the QB. Belicheat seams to focus more on confusing the QB with a variety of defensive shifts, DT pressure, and coverages than simply getting to the QB and knocking him down - the way the old 49ers and Raider defenses did.

Originally posted by Giedi:
A quick and dirty example would be a defensive end like Bosa. Do you have him read and react, or do you ask him to stunt and dog and disrupt the backfield in the pass or run game? To a certain extent today, Bellicheats defenses are read-&-react, but Kocurek's defenses are not read and react. Charlie Sumner (Al's Old DC) basically ran a gap penetration nickel defense plus 7 defensive backs, similarly Seifert's elephant/Leo defenses were designed to kill the QB.

[Charlie] Sumner's "Pirate" defense, James Davis would play nickle as both inside linebackers would come off, and Greg Townsend would play left defensive end, Bill Pickell would play left defensive tackle and Howie Long would play right defensive tackle (usually a 3 technique) in this extremely effective set. When Alzado would get nicked or needed some air, Long would played right defensive end and Townsend or Pickell would played left defensive end. And to isolate Howie Long on the center, as the Bears Buddy Ryan would do with Dan Hampton, Long would play nose tackle in a 5-man line. In the 'Desparado" defense, it was the four best pass rushers and seven defensive backs on the field for the Raiders. ("Renegade was the dime or six-man secondary).
https://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/2015/04/charlie-sumner-his-place-in-resurgance.html

The 49ers had the "elephant" position – a player who generally lined up at defensive end and was designed to mainly rush the passer. The 49ers now have a derivative of the position called the "Leo."
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/george-seiferts-influence-felt-49ers-new-defensive-scheme

To a certain extent the *tactics* overlap whether you are playing an aggressive high pressure turnover defense or a yardage (so called bend-but-don't break) philosophy defense. (I wouldn't call the NY defenses with Lawrence Taylor - bend but don't break defenses, by the way) However, the various different types of 3-4 and the 4-3 defenses have the similar assignments on similar downs and distances. I think where they differ tactically (for example) is in the aggression (gap penetration vs read and react) and what players you draft/acquire. In terms of sacks -- Cassius Marsh had more success with the 49ers vs New England, Hyder also had more success with Kocurek vs other systems. In other words, Seiferts/Walsh defenses were designed to get to the QB and cause problems, and drafted/got Fred Dean and Haley. (some more examples - Dee Ford/Bosa) To a certain extent Belicheat has modernized the old Parcells defense for the 21st century, but he still doesn't seem to have that same focus on the defensive line that Seifert/Walsh/Kyle has. Belicheat seems to focus more on the secondary with the current NFL fast break offenses, vs getting to the QB. Belicheat seams to focus more on confusing the QB with a variety of defensive shifts, DT pressure, and coverages than simply getting to the QB and knocking him down - the way the old 49ers and Raider defenses did.

Such a strange 49ers world you live in where you continuously act as if our defensive line coach is the defensive mastermind behind our scheme lol.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I got to witness both of those pick 6's live. Great time!

When you try to run a screen but the pressure is so damn overwhelming that you hand Ahkello "I think I did something" Witherspoon a gimme pick-6. God damn, our DL was ferocious in 2019.

I knew it was going to be a special year and in person, it was obvious to me Tampa had legit talent across the board minus QB...when they got Brady, I knew they had a legit shot to win it all esp. when they took Wirfs > Kinlaw (hehe).

That's the reason Tampa was all in on signing Brady and why Brady was so willing to go to a team that doesn't have a great winning tradition. He looked at the roster and knew he would have better offensive weapons than he did at NE and a defense that would keep getting him the ball in decent field position.

With our 49 players on I.R. he would have been killed here. He made the right move, objectively.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I got to witness both of those pick 6's live. Great time!

When you try to run a screen but the pressure is so damn overwhelming that you hand Ahkello "I think I did something" Witherspoon a gimme pick-6. God damn, our DL was ferocious in 2019.

I knew it was going to be a special year and in person, it was obvious to me Tampa had legit talent across the board minus QB...when they got Brady, I knew they had a legit shot to win it all esp. when they took Wirfs > Kinlaw (hehe).

That's the reason Tampa was all in on signing Brady and why Brady was so willing to go to a team that doesn't have a great winning tradition. He looked at the roster and knew he would have better offensive weapons than he did at NE and a defense that would keep getting him the ball in decent field position.

With our 49 players on I.R. he would have been killed here. He made the right move, objectively.

Agree, I think with all the injuries we had last year, Brady's *age* wouldn't have helped.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I got to witness both of those pick 6's live. Great time!

When you try to run a screen but the pressure is so damn overwhelming that you hand Ahkello "I think I did something" Witherspoon a gimme pick-6. God damn, our DL was ferocious in 2019.

I knew it was going to be a special year and in person, it was obvious to me Tampa had legit talent across the board minus QB...when they got Brady, I knew they had a legit shot to win it all esp. when they took Wirfs > Kinlaw (hehe).

That's the reason Tampa was all in on signing Brady and why Brady was so willing to go to a team that doesn't have a great winning tradition. He looked at the roster and knew he would have better offensive weapons than he did at NE and a defense that would keep getting him the ball in decent field position.

With our 49 players on I.R. he would have been killed here. He made the right move, objectively.

Agree, I think with all the injuries we had last year, Brady's *age* wouldn't have helped.

COULDA been a different turn out as Brady woulda continued a drive going, thus, the Bosa Thomas injuries would have not happened.

oh wellll !!

LETS GOOO NINERSSSSS !!!!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by btthepunk:

People forget how much this board wanted Saleh gone after his first 2 years. He wasn't even originally hired to be the DC but Shanny ran out of options.

Don't get me wrong, I like him and hope he does well in New York. Just think he was a little overrated.

Shanahan is the real DC. Always has been.

Guess all that s**t you talked about Saleh should have have really been directed at Kyle then lol

Lmao ^^

Very odd time to incite (Hoov staple).

But my point was Kyle pushed to expand upon the C3, brought in several specialty coaches and WITH Saleh (morphing very well), got better and better but he definitely had a long ways to grow from the start. Saleh did a great job growing and developing and accepting to job of morphing away from pure C3.

But Kyle is still the real DC here as he grills the DC weekly on game plans.

So when you were complaining about how bad the defensive coordinator was 2017-2019, you were complaining about how terrible Shanahan was.

You excused Saleh's 2 predecessors of not having their guys and needing a few years to put their systems in place and then when they hired Saleh you never gave him a chance...even though he inherited a historically bad defense from those guys.


You are right about a lot but were way wrong about Saleh.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by btthepunk:
People forget how much this board wanted Saleh gone after his first 2 years. He wasn't even originally hired to be the DC but Shanny ran out of options.

Don't get me wrong, I like him and hope he does well in New York. Just think he was a little overrated.

Shanahan is the real DC. Always has been.

Guess all that s**t you talked about Saleh should have have really been directed at Kyle then lol

Lmao ^^

Very odd time to incite (Hoov staple).

But my point was Kyle pushed to expand upon the C3, brought in several specialty coaches and WITH Saleh (morphing very well), got better and better but he definitely had a long ways to grow from the start. Saleh did a great job growing and developing and accepting to job of morphing away from pure C3.

But Kyle is still the real DC here as he grills the DC weekly on game plans.

So when you were complaining about how bad the defensive coordinator was 2017-2019, you were complaining about how terrible Shanahan was.

You excused Saleh's 2 predecessors of not having their guys and needing a few years to put their systems in place and then when they hired Saleh you never gave him a chance...even though he inherited a historically bad defense from those guys.

You are right about a lot but were way wrong about Saleh.

No, I was complaining about the limits of C3 that had been exposed league-wide by then, Saleh not having the acumen (or specialty coaches) to adjust yet and his late adjustments to players left on islands. It was a mix of being green and limited in scheme knowledge and in-game experience.

But his ability to be open to different schemes, new coaches and morphing that all together for weekly game planning and learning to adjust quicker in-game should be highly praised.

He came a long way!

LOL.

Welp, that explains why he never called another TO again.

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL.

Welp, that explains why he never called another TO again.

Funny story from Robert Saleh on how Kyle Shanahan yelled at him for calling a timeout in his first ever game as a defensive coordinator. This is from the Flying Coach podcast with Sean McVay and @PSchrags. pic.twitter.com/DtxKRQ0fFY

— Vish Kumaran (@VishKumaran) May 27, 2021

The reactions in the background when he says he called the TO

Coordinators don't call timeouts.

Originally posted by evil:
The reactions in the background when he says he called the TO

Coordinators don't call timeouts.

I remember being pissed off watching him get torched or in the wrong sets or players confused pre snap and screaming, "Call a TO Saleh! Regroup."

Now we know why it never happened...again. LOL

Heroism and Hysterikal:
(insert Charlie Murphy laughing gif)