Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

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

I just listed the two types of man but as to the type of technique we'd use? Pure physical jam press as noted above...NOT soft press bump and run.

well if it's physical, jam press man-to-man there's no eyes on the QB at that point. really if Denver goes 4-wide in the 2nd half we're screwed personnel wise. thankfully they didnt need to they were ahead by so much, lol

If my math is right, that's:

5 in coverage. 1 deep safety. Double cover DThomas. 4 man pass rush. Peyton has all day and finds his mismatch.

Could it work? Sure why not, but it requires Manning to be off his game a bit and make some mistakes.

If the jams are effective, add one second+ for the pass rushers. They were getting there around 3.5-4 seconds. Manning was throwing under 3. And just b/c you jam, it doesn't mean the WR automatically "wins" after that. Coverage still is encouraged. LOL.

As to your point though...right after the TO by CK, Manning went right after Cox with Thomas with Bethea over the top. TD! Game over. Now, would that play have been more effective with a hard jam at the LOS allowing Bethea more time to slide over and provide over-the-top help? No jam meant both were in trail-mode for the TD. And personally, I would have used Reid, not Bethea as the single high S.

No, a jam probably results in getting beat even worse. Best receiver you can put a jam on is Welker. I'd be WAY more comfortable with more closer man if we had Bowman and Willis. Because I don't want to have to leave Borland and Whilhoite alone in man.....

I think you guys are overhyping the Broncos WR's a bit too much. When was the last time we got beat badly by a WR...outmuscled...physically beat? Ward against Chicago? Probably the only guy we'd struggle with there would be Thomas physically but we've got two matched up on him with a press CB and Reid playing high waiting in case any WR does break through the jams and gets behind a CB. Did you guys not watch the Superbowl? I can take you back to when the Chargers would play Indy. It's THE formula for beating Manning and really, any great timing offense. We just gave up 42 points...with ease...so the one thing we do know is that that game plan did not work at all (exclusive off coverage).

I'd LOVE for the Broncos to go to bunch formation on us. It's essentially defending a screen pass and we're great at this. If they are forced to go to a bunch formation or do several motions to get their guys clean, that means we're doing our jobs and dictating their offense...NOT sitting back on our heels giving him easy uncontested pitch-catches. I can't believe you guys think this was a good game plan and are just chalking it up to poor personnel/overmatched? Manning was 22 of 26 with 3 dropped passes and I don't think he even broke a sweat all game. He threw maybe 2 passes over 10 yards. Those are classic WCO numbers right there when a defense plays off and plays right into your game plan and strengths.

And why do you guys keep saying we're not getting there with 4 guys? We're a 3-4 defense meaning we have 2 OLB's rushing (depending on the assignment) with a 3-man DL. You are ignoring the fact that the ball is coming out as designed...under 3 seconds. You seriously think Aldon, Willis, Bowman back would change that design? And unlike us on offense, they actually move their best targets around to create mismatches (TE Thomas on Brock) and stay with what works. So Willis/Bowman would not be covering the TE here as he was split out wide most of the night.

Fangio had said that he doesn't like to single out DB's on specific targets (WR/TE's). He doesn't like individual matchups b/c it screws up his off coverage schemes where everyone holds a specific assignment. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you need to do sometimes when the offense is targeting and dominating a weakness (like the Bears game). So I knew coming into this game, it was going to be simple pitch-catch all day long. And it was.

A few of you can chalk it up to suddenly, we have outmatched and poor personnel. I'll chalk it up to odd position switches, personnel choices and a very poor design against a well-known and documented offense.

Originally posted by REB4:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
yeah, good luck playing press vs. those receivers. we're not Seattle.

Oh you mean it could have been worst? LOL, nothing could have been worst then last night...looked like the Raiders, lol. I don't know about you, but if I am going to lose, I'd rather go out swinging and trying to win, rather then play to not lose by too much.

Seriously, if every throw is out under 3 seconds you can't expect ANY pass rush to consistently get there. So the only chance you have is to play tighter up at the LOS and throw off the timing...sometimes, just being an obstacle is enough to add 1 second for your pass rushers to get there. Rodney Harrison knows a thing or two about beating UP Manning. It's a simpe formula that makes them earn every single yard and every single pass. Is there a chance a guy breaks through? Sure...but at least you made them earn it and didn't hand it to them on a silver platter.

Originally posted by thl408:
Playing press man coverage is a bold statement. It says "our CBs are better than your WRs - physcially and technique wise". That is not that case when it's Cox/Cook/Brock versus DThomas/WWelker/ESanders. This whole notion of playing press equals a 49er victory is hogwash. Would it have given the 49ers a better chance? Who knows, but based on the matchups above, I doubt it. The 49er CBs are not better than the DEN WRs and it's not even close.

By this logic, then why didn't we put up 82 points on Denver's defense? B/c they played more aggressive and physical and challenged us. Once we handed them 21 points, they could pin their ears back and play extra aggressive. The only time they sat back was in the prevent defense where they instantly gave up a TD right before half time. I'm pretty sure Crabtree, Boldin, Johnson, VD, McDonald, Carrier, Gore, Hyde, CK (arm and legs and ad lib ability), etc. was more than enough to keep their DC up all night but it sure didn't seem like his game plan was, "OK, their strength is the intermediate to deeper passes so we're going to play even deeper but after they catch it, we'll tackle them."

Originally posted by REB4:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
yeah, good luck playing press vs. those receivers. we're not Seattle.

Oh you mean it could have been worst? LOL, nothing could have been worst then last night...looked like the Raiders, lol. I don't know about you, but if I am going to lose, I'd rather go out swinging and trying to win, rather then play to not lose by too much.

This is not a good sign...our fans are being conditioned not to lose (prevent-a-win defense).

Originally posted by ronniefreakinlott42:
Would it be at all worth it to try to acquire a corner or 2 during this season? I realize that any FA's we could get wouldn't be elite class, and would require time to absorb the playbook, but those we currently have seem pretty bad. Fangio's job becomes much harder when he has to compensate for our shortcomings rather than utilizing our strengths. Far too much faith has been placed in our ability to pressure the QB with 4 men, and now that we can't, our sub par CB's are exposed.

This...to jonnydel's point, I don't buy that you have to be 6'3" with extra long arms and have the strength powered by PED's. This is not accurate. Jam press is all about technique and this is a skill set that matches a number of DB's Baalke has drafted or brought in over the years: Nnamdi, Cooper, Johnson, Cook, Culliver, Brock, Cox, etc...not sure about Ward (former S/CB)/Morris. If your pass rush isn't getting there by 3.5 seconds, this is a good defense to employ. Nobody is saying we need to play exclusively this way...just an added wrinkle...but against a timing offense like Denver, yes, the Seattle formula works and no, you do not need Sherman or Thomas to make it work.

Originally posted by REB4:
Oh you mean it could have been worst? LOL, nothing could have been worst then last night...looked like the Raiders, lol. I don't know about you, but if I am going to lose, I'd rather go out swinging and trying to win, rather then play to not lose by too much.

it's not playing to lose the way we played on defense last night. that

Originally posted by NCommand:
This is not a good sign...our fans are being conditioned not to lose (prevent-a-win defense).

you're a fool if that's what you think the kind of defense is we play. Seriously, some of the things you've said in this thread make me shake my head.

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think you guys are overhyping the Broncos WR's a bit too much. When was the last time we got beat badly by a WR...outmuscled...physically beat? Ward against Chicago? Probably the only guy we'd struggle with there would be Thomas physically but we've got two matched up on him with a press CB and Reid playing high waiting in case any WR does break through the jams and gets behind a CB. Did you guys not watch the Superbowl? I can take you back to when the Chargers would play Indy. It's THE formula for beating Manning and really, any great timing offense. We just gave up 42 points...with ease...so the one thing we do know is that that game plan did not work at all (exclusive off coverage).

I'd LOVE for the Broncos to go to bunch formation on us. It's essentially defending a screen pass and we're great at this. If they are forced to go to a bunch formation or do several motions to get their guys clean, that means we're doing our jobs and dictating their offense...NOT sitting back on our heels giving him easy uncontested pitch-catches. I can't believe you guys think this was a good game plan and are just chalking it up to poor personnel/overmatched? Manning was 22 of 26 with 3 dropped passes and I don't think he even broke a sweat all game. He threw maybe 2 passes over 10 yards. Those are classic WCO numbers right there when a defense plays off and plays right into your game plan and strengths.

And why do you guys keep saying we're not getting there with 4 guys? We're a 3-4 defense meaning we have 2 OLB's rushing (depending on the assignment) with a 3-man DL. You are ignoring the fact that the ball is coming out as designed...under 3 seconds. You seriously think Aldon, Willis, Bowman back would change that design? And unlike us on offense, they actually move their best targets around to create mismatches (TE Thomas on Brock) and stay with what works. So Willis/Bowman would not be covering the TE here as he was split out wide most of the night.

Fangio had said that he doesn't like to single out DB's on specific targets (WR/TE's). He doesn't like individual matchups b/c it screws up his off coverage schemes where everyone holds a specific assignment. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you need to do sometimes when the offense is targeting and dominating a weakness (like the Bears game). So I knew coming into this game, it was going to be simple pitch-catch all day long. And it was.

A few of you can chalk it up to suddenly, we have outmatched and poor personnel. I'll chalk it up to odd position switches, personnel choices and a very poor design against a well-known and documented offense.

A bunch formation is the sign of a man coverage buster if it's not a screen. We lost the game with a DECIMATED defense and really stood no chance. Not a good night for Brock to come back as well. Just because we don't play 'press man' means we play "not to lose defense." Oh, and don't forget losing Patrick Willis in replacement of Borland isn't that big of a drop off.

Originally posted by NCommand:
By this logic, then why didn't we put up 82 points on Denver's defense? B/c they played more aggressive and physical and challenged us. Once we handed them 21 points, they could pin their ears back and play extra aggressive. The only time they sat back was in the prevent defense where they instantly gave up a TD right before half time. I'm pretty sure Crabtree, Boldin, Johnson, VD, McDonald, Carrier, Gore, Hyde, CK (arm and legs and ad lib ability), etc. was more than enough to keep their DC up all night but it sure didn't seem like his game plan was, "OK, their strength is the intermediate to deeper passes so we're going to play even deeper but after they catch it, we'll tackle them."

Because they f**king mauled our O-LINE, got pressure with just FOUR and that ALLOWED them to play more PHYSICAL. f**king Ware, and Miller on the outside roasting Staley and A.Davis at times. You don't understand you can't just play straight up PRESS man if you don't have ANY pressure. It's how Seattle was able to in the superbowl.

Originally posted by ElephantHaley:
49ers Shoulda played 2 safeties High man coverage under with stunting. Ahmad Brooks needs to earn it. He's had such a Poopy year. In fangios scheme, if the front 4 do not get pressure, its virtually IMPOSSIBLE Not to get Mauled by Manning. Especually without Bowman to use his speed sideline to sideline. And Justin Smith Looked Awfully Old & Slow last night poor guy has been a One Man show!!

youll see in the film breakdown thread.

The 49ers secondary was getting beat deep while playing off coverage and playing 7 or 8 in coverage most of the time. I don't want to imagine how bad the beating would have been had the DB's been playing press man coverage the whole time. Would have been ugly. With a pass rush it might have been different but I'm not convinced any of our corners can man up on any of Denver ' s wr's regardless of a good pass rush.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:
This is not a good sign...our fans are being conditioned not to lose (prevent-a-win defense).

you're a fool if that's what you think the kind of defense is we play. Seriously, some of the things you've said in this thread make me shake my head.

I'd never call you a "fool" for thinking the way you do...that we had poor personnel and were overmatched by supreme talent of Denver that night and that is why we gave up 42 points. For me, like I said above, I'll chalk it up to odd position switches, personnel choices and a very poor design against a well-known and documented offense.

We can agree to disagree on this one going forward.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:
This is not a good sign...our fans are being conditioned not to lose (prevent-a-win defense).

you're a fool if that's what you think the kind of defense is we play. Seriously, some of the things you've said in this thread make me shake my head.

I'd never call you a "fool" for thinking the way you do...that we had poor personnel and were overmatched by supreme talent of Denver that night and that is why we gave up 42 points. For me, like I said above, I'll chalk it up to odd position switches, personnel choices and a very poor design against a well-known and documented offense.

We can agree to disagree on this one going forward.

I don't think your opinion is foolish, but to say that we play a "not-to-lose" defense is absurd. Or just for that night. You're entitled to your opinions on how we should have played them otherwise, though.

Originally posted by NinerG94:
The 49ers secondary was getting beat deep while playing off coverage and playing 7 or 8 in coverage most of the time. I don't want to imagine how bad the beating would have been had the DB's been playing press man coverage the whole time. Would have been ugly. With a pass rush it might have been different but I'm not convinced any of our corners can man up on any of Denver ' s wr's regardless of a good pass rush.

They got beat one time deep on the immediate TD by Thomas on Cox and Bethea right after the CK INT IIRC. They got beat b/c Thomas was lined up outside (again, IIRC) and had a free and clean release and was able to beat Cox and a late-arriving Bethea. And you're right...that magical < 3 second pass rush would have instantly allowed our off coverage DB's to come up and make INT's all day.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:
This is not a good sign...our fans are being conditioned not to lose (prevent-a-win defense).

you're a fool if that's what you think the kind of defense is we play. Seriously, some of the things you've said in this thread make me shake my head.

I'd never call you a "fool" for thinking the way you do...that we had poor personnel and were overmatched by supreme talent of Denver that night and that is why we gave up 42 points. For me, like I said above, I'll chalk it up to odd position switches, personnel choices and a very poor design against a well-known and documented offense.

We can agree to disagree on this one going forward.

I don't think your opinion is foolish, but to say that we play a "not-to-lose" defense is absurd. Or just for that night. You're entitled to your opinions on how we should have played them otherwise, though.

When you sit back deep in off coverage and allow the QB to throw easy 2-7 passes (near perfect completion night with only 1 real incompletion) AND give up the TDs in the same fashion, you are essentially, playing a prevent-a-win defense against Manning. Like how we scored our only real TD just before the half.

PS: You may want to change your name to defenderFangio or defenderHaRoman or defendergameplan. j/k!