Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Okay, then I would like to bold, underline, and even italicize this: getting to him

The 49ers were not getting to him. Did you want Fangio to start blitzing Manning continuously? As if no team has tried that before?

Oh God no! No way. That would be game suicide there. We haven't gotten to anyone under 3 seconds on every pass with just 5 defenders (not even with Aldon). No way. We may have had a chance to overload the RT who was struggling but that's about it with base personnel. BUT, we were getting their arounf 3.5-4+ seconds. So, by playing physical jam, tight coverage with their WR's with an eye on the QB, yes, I think that would have been just enough to disrupt the timing of the routes, force Manning to hesitate, pump, pull down and allow the front 5 to get there to the human statue.

PS: And I agree overall with you that it still may not have been enough to win last night but I do feel that if we kept Cox at LCB where he was on a roll, slid him inside to the slot ala Rogers when needed, moved Brock back to RCB and when Cox slid inside, had Cully/Johnson/Cook outside in mixing up between physical press and off coverage (pattern matching), yes, I think we had more than a fighting chance to pull this off or at least make a game out of it. And no, I do not think their WR's are better than our secondary physically. When they are allowed to run free and clean off the LOS, playing to their strengths, yes, then I am afraid. The only two WR's that are a mismatch straight up physically for us are the Chicago WR's and TE. We typically shut down the big "names" in the game.

FWIW, with the exception of a handful of passes where ESPN stats show "less than 3 on Def Line"--where Manning is 14/26 for 186 yds / 1TD / 0 INT / 85.5 RATING, his worst numbers are when he is blitzed....29/50 for 321 YDS / 4TD / 1 INT / 95.5.

Granted, those are still good numbers, but still "much worse" then when he's rushed by only 3 or 4. Personally I would've liked to have seen more 1 or 2 man blitzes up the middle, MAYBE it disrupts him to where he can't step up and instead has move laterally.

Would it have worked with the personnel available? I don't know...and truth is even if it was effective probably would not have been enough to change the outcome. But all that cushion and allowing receivers to get into their routes unfettered without a whiff of pressure on Manning is like putting a giant "KICK ME" sign on your back.

Originally posted by thl408:
What you are talking about in the bolded is zone coverage. A defender can't play tight coverage on the WR while having an eye on the QB. You can't have it both ways when playing man coverage. If a CB plays press man and has one eye on the QB, he's burnt toast right off the line of scrimmage. He needs to watch those WR's hips. You either play loose man coverage (off coverage) and have an eye on the QB, OR you put both your eyes on the WR in an attempt to play tight man coverage.

Well, we aren't going to change each other's mind. I think there was nothing the 49ers could have done that could have stopped Manning because the gap in talent was too large, not to mention the physicality of DThomas and JThomas. You think playing press would have yielded better results. The score was 42-17 so I'm not sure how much of a difference a different defensive strategy would have made.

Sure you can. Within the first five yards, you jam the WR hard (see Johnson last week) knocking him off his route and timing and then before he regains form, peek into the backfield while using an arm extended to feel the WR. Sherman does this well. The first second or two, he blasts the WR squaring him up high (picture VD/Crabtree trying to get a release on him...LOL), peeks inside, feels VD and runs stride for stride with him with inside leverage, say, on a go-route. And if the jam is effective, he doesn't even need to peek inside like you said and he can just read the body language and route of the WR. But the effective jam just adds 1 extra second for the pass rushers to get there by disrupting the timing of the route. That said, I don't know if I'd do that on every receiver either...some like Stevie Johnson are so electric off the LOS they invite jamming (but that's rare). I defintely think it would have yielded better results and helped get the CB's more "involved" in a positive way and in a more aggressive mindset that fits our personnel better. Our CB's are not afriad to mix it up at all. To what degree? Obvioulsy, I can't have a take on that one b/c we've never played press so I don't even have a baseline.

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by thl408:
Let's forget about Manning for a minute. The 49ers run defense was giving up the following to the DEN RBs:

Name: carries/yards/avg per carry
Hillman: 14/74/5.3
Thompson: 6/30/5.0

In his post game presser, Manning mentioned how the run game's effectiveness opened up the passing game. Take Bow out, okay. Take Willis out too? Yikes.

that was a lie by peyton. the passing game is what killed us in the 1st half and totally opened us up for the run in the 2nd half.

I believe that. I just looked up all the runs by DEN in the 1st half and it was not anything I would consider an 'established' run game. I shouldn't have gone off his post game interview.

Originally posted by DelCed2486:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Okay, then I would like to bold, underline, and even italicize this: getting to him

The 49ers were not getting to him. Did you want Fangio to start blitzing Manning continuously? As if no team has tried that before?

Oh God no! No way. That would be game suicide there. We haven't gotten to anyone under 3 seconds on every pass with just 5 defenders (not even with Aldon). No way. We may have had a chance to overload the RT who was struggling but that's about it with base personnel. BUT, we were getting their arounf 3.5-4+ seconds. So, by playing physical jam, tight coverage with their WR's with an eye on the QB, yes, I think that would have been just enough to disrupt the timing of the routes, force Manning to hesitate, pump, pull down and allow the front 5 to get there to the human statue.

PS: And I agree overall with you that it still may not have been enough to win last night but I do feel that if we kept Cox at LCB where he was on a roll, slid him inside to the slot ala Rogers when needed, moved Brock back to RCB and when Cox slid inside, had Cully/Johnson/Cook outside in mixing up between physical press and off coverage (pattern matching), yes, I think we had more than a fighting chance to pull this off or at least make a game out of it. And no, I do not think their WR's are better than our secondary physically. When they are allowed to run free and clean off the LOS, playing to their strengths, yes, then I am afraid. The only two WR's that are a mismatch straight up physically for us are the Chicago WR's and TE. We typically shut down the big "names" in the game.

FWIW, with the exception of a handful of passes where ESPN stats show "less than 3 on Def Line"--where Manning is 14/26 for 186 yds / 1TD / 0 INT / 85.5 RATING, his worst numbers are when he is blitzed....29/50 for 321 YDS / 4TD / 1 INT / 95.5.

Granted, those are still good numbers, but still "much worse" then when he's rushed by only 3 or 4. Personally I would've liked to have seen more 1 or 2 man blitzes up the middle, MAYBE it disrupts him to where he can't step up and instead has move laterally.

Would it have worked with the personnel available? I don't know...and truth is even if it was effective probably would not have been enough to change the outcome. But all that cushion and allowing receivers to get into their routes unfettered without a whiff of pressure on Manning is like putting a giant "KICK ME" sign on your back.

I have noticed Whiloite blitzing more or stunting, delayed blitzes, etc. It may have worked but I'm sure he was more focused on getting the alignments right. I guess we coul dhave rushed Brooks from inside and at others, drop back in coverage ala the Saints game. But yes, for a statue of a QB, inside pressure is a good thing to bring esp. in our 3-4 b/c the outside LB's are usually pinching him inside on the edges!

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by thl408:
Let's forget about Manning for a minute. The 49ers run defense was giving up the following to the DEN RBs:

Name: carries/yards/avg per carry
Hillman: 14/74/5.3
Thompson: 6/30/5.0

In his post game presser, Manning mentioned how the run game's effectiveness opened up the passing game. Take Bow out, okay. Take Willis out too? Yikes.

that was a lie by peyton. the passing game is what killed us in the 1st half and totally opened us up for the run in the 2nd half.

I believe that. I just looked up all the runs by DEN in the 1st half and it was not anything I would consider an 'established' run game. I shouldn't have gone off his post game interview.

That Manning...he's a sneaky b*****d. Jedi mind tricks!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
What you are talking about in the bolded is zone coverage. A defender can't play tight coverage on the WR while having an eye on the QB. You can't have it both ways when playing man coverage. If a CB plays press man and has one eye on the QB, he's burnt toast right off the line of scrimmage. He needs to watch those WR's hips. You either play loose man coverage (off coverage) and have an eye on the QB, OR you put both your eyes on the WR in an attempt to play tight man coverage.

Well, we aren't going to change each other's mind. I think there was nothing the 49ers could have done that could have stopped Manning because the gap in talent was too large, not to mention the physicality of DThomas and JThomas. You think playing press would have yielded better results. The score was 42-17 so I'm not sure how much of a difference a different defensive strategy would have made.

Sure you can. Within the first five yards, you jam the WR hard (see Johnson last week) knocking him off his route and timing and then before he regains form, peek into the backfield while using an arm extended to feel the WR. Sherman does this well. The first second or two, he blasts the WR squaring him up high (picture VD/Crabtree trying to get a release on him...LOL), peeks inside, feels VD and runs stride for stride with him with inside leverage, say, on a go-route. And if the jam is effective, he doesn't even need to peek inside like you said and he can just read the body language and route of the WR. But the effective jam just adds 1 extra second for the pass rushers to get there by disrupting the timing of the route. That said, I don't know if I'd do that on every receiver either...some like Stevie Johnson are so electric off the LOS they invite jamming (but that's rare). I defintely think it would have yielded better results and helped get the CB's more "involved" in a positive way and in a more aggressive mindset that fits our personnel better. Our CB's are not afriad to mix it up at all. To what degree? Obvioulsy, I can't have a take on that one b/c we've never played press so I don't even have a baseline.

I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by DelCed2486:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:
Someone posted what Rodney Harrison said about how a team has to beat Manning with more than just scheme. I agree. This means that it's more than just coaching. That means the talent of the defenders comes into play. Simply put, the 49ers did not have the horses to beat Manning last night. It did not matter what the 49ers did. jonesadrian, if you want to say that playing press would have made a difference, that's fine. I agree it would have made a difference. I am not so sure it would have been for the better though. Again, this goes back to how I think the 49er CBs do not match up well versus the DEN WRs 1v1.

When a team plays zone, Manning understands the seams and holes in zones. When a team plays man, then Manning dials up all the pick plays and rub routes. As well as showing his confidence in his players (DThomas/JThomas) to physically overmatch the DB that is covering them in man coverage by throwing up 50/50 balls. When a team blitzes, Manning gets rid of the ball quickly and you put major stress on the DBs to cover.

I stated above that the best way to play Manning, or any top QB, is rush 4 and play coverage - pattern matching as that narrows the seams that is found in traditional zone coverages. That's how Fangio beats Rodgers/Brees/Ryan. When the 4 man pass rush can't get there, on top of the WRs being better than the CBs, it's game over as far as that strategy (drop 7 into coverage) goes. I'm not positive what Fangio did last night because I can't see the secondary, but my guess is he did the same thing when beating the other top QBs.

So the next question is, "did the 49ers mix it up enough?". I still say it wouldn't matter because the offensive talent that DEN fielded easily trumps the defensive talent the 49ers fielded last night. Fangio was playing poker with a short stack of chips.

Here it is courtesy JTsBiggestFan:

Rodney Harrison said it in the pregame show: "You don't beat Peyton Manning with scheme. You beat him by getting to him and jamming his receivers." This isn't exactly a secret people! He reversed the quote though...it should be, "You beat him (Manning) by jamming the receivers which throws off the timing and allows your pass rushers to get to him."

Okay, then I would like to bold, underline, and even italicize this: getting to him

The 49ers were not getting to him. Did you want Fangio to start blitzing Manning continuously? As if no team has tried that before?

Oh God no! No way. That would be game suicide there. We haven't gotten to anyone under 3 seconds on every pass with just 5 defenders (not even with Aldon). No way. We may have had a chance to overload the RT who was struggling but that's about it with base personnel. BUT, we were getting their arounf 3.5-4+ seconds. So, by playing physical jam, tight coverage with their WR's with an eye on the QB, yes, I think that would have been just enough to disrupt the timing of the routes, force Manning to hesitate, pump, pull down and allow the front 5 to get there to the human statue.

PS: And I agree overall with you that it still may not have been enough to win last night but I do feel that if we kept Cox at LCB where he was on a roll, slid him inside to the slot ala Rogers when needed, moved Brock back to RCB and when Cox slid inside, had Cully/Johnson/Cook outside in mixing up between physical press and off coverage (pattern matching), yes, I think we had more than a fighting chance to pull this off or at least make a game out of it. And no, I do not think their WR's are better than our secondary physically. When they are allowed to run free and clean off the LOS, playing to their strengths, yes, then I am afraid. The only two WR's that are a mismatch straight up physically for us are the Chicago WR's and TE. We typically shut down the big "names" in the game.

FWIW, with the exception of a handful of passes where ESPN stats show "less than 3 on Def Line"--where Manning is 14/26 for 186 yds / 1TD / 0 INT / 85.5 RATING, his worst numbers are when he is blitzed....29/50 for 321 YDS / 4TD / 1 INT / 95.5.

Granted, those are still good numbers, but still "much worse" then when he's rushed by only 3 or 4. Personally I would've liked to have seen more 1 or 2 man blitzes up the middle, MAYBE it disrupts him to where he can't step up and instead has move laterally.

Would it have worked with the personnel available? I don't know...and truth is even if it was effective probably would not have been enough to change the outcome. But all that cushion and allowing receivers to get into their routes unfettered without a whiff of pressure on Manning is like putting a giant "KICK ME" sign on your back.

I have noticed Whiloite blitzing more or stunting, delayed blitzes, etc. It may have worked but I'm sure he was more focused on getting the alignments right. I guess we coul dhave rushed Brooks from inside and at others, drop back in coverage ala the Saints game. But yes, for a statue of a QB, inside pressure is a good thing to bring esp. in our 3-4 b/c the outside LB's are usually pinching him inside on the edges!

Thanks for posting that DelCed. I guess blitzing more would have been the way to go. How much would it have changed things, who knows. But looking back, I suppose they could have done something different. I just don't know if it would have made a positive impact. The 49ers, true to form, tried to keep everything in front of them and they even failed at that.

Jedi mind tricks.Hahahahaha. MMMMM use the force you must, PM will still stomp u into dust. I think we would have needed Lone star's schwartz for this one.

Use it to shoot a laser beam to shoot him in the b...s.

Originally posted by thl408:
I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Haha...it's all good...it's a technique I saw taught in college. It's different from what you're describing b/c they are not honing in on the QB the whole time like you noted but peeking in to see if the pass is coming in (like when Crabtree slices inside for a slant but is jammed first and it throws everything off; since it's a quick timing route a peek inside might = an INT). I really do feel guys like Cook, Johnson, Cully, Brock and Cox (the first 3 especially) would be very good at squaring the WR up, jamming them upwards (notice how Sherman jams, pulls the WR towards him and lifts up?), etc. The reason they do this is b/c it forces the WR upwards, stunts their momentum forward and then they have to make an extra move (bring their head back down) to get back up to speed. That's very disruptive. It's a technique and nothing more. You don't have to be Richard Sherman to do that. There are all sorts of different jamming priciples and techniques and styles...Cook himself was working on these this past off season. I'm sure this is all a moot point anyhow b/c we don't don't subscribe to that but it could be extra effective as a wrinkle against a timing offense like the Broncos and one that would throw off other QB's coupled with our more intricate off coverage schemes.

Originally posted by thl408:
I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Sorry NC, but I agree here. Not sure what your perception of press man is, but I feel like you're really describing what we should/can do from an unrealistic perspective. Like you said thl408, we played poker with a low stack of chips. Perfect analogy. I feel like our lack of personnel limited our play-calling on defense and package groupings. (especially in the 2nd half). Would you agree th? 3 available corners, no Willis, ouch.....

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by thl408:
I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Sorry NC, but I agree here. Not sure what your perception of press man is, but I feel like you're really describing what we should/can do from an unrealistic perspective. Like you said thl408, we played poker with a low stack of chips. Perfect analogy. I feel like our lack of personnel limited our play-calling on defense and package groupings. (especially in the 2nd half). Would you agree th? 3 available corners, no Willis, ouch.....

See above...I was describing a technique of jam press.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by thl408:
I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Sorry NC, but I agree here. Not sure what your perception of press man is, but I feel like you're really describing what we should/can do from an unrealistic perspective. Like you said thl408, we played poker with a low stack of chips. Perfect analogy. I feel like our lack of personnel limited our play-calling on defense and package groupings. (especially in the 2nd half). Would you agree th? 3 available corners, no Willis, ouch.....

See above...I was describing a technique of jam press.

Okay, so what type of man coverage would you want to see specifically from our DB's?

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by thl408:
I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Sorry NC, but I agree here. Not sure what your perception of press man is, but I feel like you're really describing what we should/can do from an unrealistic perspective. Like you said thl408, we played poker with a low stack of chips. Perfect analogy. I feel like our lack of personnel limited our play-calling on defense and package groupings. (especially in the 2nd half). Would you agree th? 3 available corners, no Willis, ouch.....

See above...I was describing a technique of jam press.

Okay, so what type of man coverage would you want to see specifically from our DB's?

Man free (single high S with Reid) and Combo man on Thomas mixed in with our off coverage schemes. With 4 and 5 WR's I wouldn't go straight man. This is where their talent would have an edge on our last DB or two.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by thl408:
I would be just fine if all the 49er CBs were able to play like Sherman. Since that can't happen, let's have every DLman play like JJWatt. That might be easier to teach since Tomsula is really good.

Sorry NC, I'm just trying to be funny. What you are describing simply isn't proper press bump and run technique. Looking at the QB isn't just the act of glancing at him, it's actually watching him and seeing when the QB opens up his shoulders to get into his throwing motion. You can't do that when playing tight man coverage or press bump and run.

Sorry NC, but I agree here. Not sure what your perception of press man is, but I feel like you're really describing what we should/can do from an unrealistic perspective. Like you said thl408, we played poker with a low stack of chips. Perfect analogy. I feel like our lack of personnel limited our play-calling on defense and package groupings. (especially in the 2nd half). Would you agree th? 3 available corners, no Willis, ouch.....

See above...I was describing a technique of jam press.

Okay, so what type of man coverage would you want to see specifically from our DB's?

Man free (single high S with Reid) and Combo man on Thomas mixed in with our off coverage schemes. With 4 and 5 WR's I wouldn't go straight man. This is where their talent would have an edge on our last DB or two.

what kind of man? bump and run? close tight nit press? you listed some college stuff so what about that