There are 233 users in the forums
Originally posted by NCommand:
^^^ You worry me defenderDX. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. I won't respond to you anymore directly, OK? And I ask the same of you...
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by sincalfaithful:
Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I was just watching NFLN and they were describing how you defeat Manning. You'll never guess what the game plan was...queue Rodney Harrison's quote.
4-3 defense, man press coverage at the LOS (esp. jam) which allows your pessure to get there and don't be afraid to bring pressure up the gut as well in conjunction with that man, tight, press coverage at the LOS. Of course, they were only showing highlights of 4-3 teams like Seattle, Indy, Jets, etc. But you get the idea.
What did we do? Drop 8, "rush" (using this loosely) 3 = zero pass rush. 22 for 26 with 3 dropped passes and only played 3 quarters. 42 points.
There is no way a SF coordinator could have a poor game plan, right? #blamepersonnel
Nothing is ever the coaching staffs fault with this team
Noooooo! Not at all. Not possible. The man doing the analysis? Willie McGinnis. Another guy, like Harrison, who's had a little success over Manning. With all due respect to our NT analysts, I have to go with their game plan on this one. Who cares if we "tried" quarters, cover 2 zone, cover 2 man, cover 1 man, cover 1 lurk, cover 3 zone, cover 6 zone, etc. with 7-8 on the backend. What's the common demonimator in all of these coverages?
I have never said that I can think of better game plan than these analysts/former players you see on TV. What I have done is defended Fangio's gameplan. You are the one saying Fangio should have done this, Fangio should have done that. With all due respect to you, but I have to go with the gameplan of a DC that has legit NFL credibility, and longevity, over a fan with 10 angry fingers. Is he infallible? Of course not. But given the hand he was dealt last Sunday, I personally don't see a clear cut better method to slowing down Manning. A bunch of second string LBs, run stuffing DL, and solid DBs isn't enough to stop Manning. If you want to take Rodney Harrison's words to heart, take to heart how he said it takes more than scheme to beat Manning. You need players - good players. Make that excellent players.
If you check out some of the plays in the Broncos Film Thread you'll see how badly the 49ers got burned when they blitzed and didn't get to Manning. I've already stated why I don't think playing press bump and run would have resulted in better results earlier in this thread. You disagree. I respect that.
Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I was just watching NFLN and they were describing how you defeat Manning. You'll never guess what the game plan was...queue Rodney Harrison's quote.
4-3 defense, man press coverage at the LOS (esp. jam) which allows your pessure to get there and don't be afraid to bring pressure up the gut as well in conjunction with that man, tight, press coverage at the LOS. Of course, they were only showing highlights of 4-3 teams like Seattle, Indy, Jets, etc. But you get the idea.
What did we do? Drop 8, "rush" (using this loosely) 3 = zero pass rush. 22 for 26 with 3 dropped passes and only played 3 quarters. 42 points.
There is no way a SF coordinator could have a poor game plan, right? #blamepersonnel
Originally posted by dtg_9er:Originally posted by NCommand:LOL. I was just watching NFLN and they were describing how you defeat Manning. You'll never guess what the game plan was...queue Rodney Harrison's quote.
4-3 defense, man press coverage at the LOS (esp. jam) which allows your pessure to get there and don't be afraid to bring pressure up the gut as well in conjunction with that man, tight, press coverage at the LOS. Of course, they were only showing highlights of 4-3 teams like Seattle, Indy, Jets, etc. But you get the idea.
What did we do? Drop 8, "rush" (using this loosely) 3 = zero pass rush. 22 for 26 with 3 dropped passes and only played 3 quarters. 42 points.
There is no way a SF coordinator could have a poor game plan, right? #blamepersonnel
Before the game I thought they should use an extra safety to help disguise some blitzes, but then Ward was out and my thoughts changed...again. LOL! It seemed that everytime I considered a plan someone was out making it less likely to be successful. Dropping LBs into coverage while blitzing DBs...not with three of the top four LBs out. Not sure how Lynch would cover but doubt he has the D down well enough to be effective. Even thought about a 3/0/8 with eight DBs and no LBs...but there weren't enough healthy DBs. Then I thought...how about a 0/0/11 and use Kaepernick and Hyde back there...
Not sure Fangio could do much with all the injuries cropping up. The back ups probably had the basics down but it's difficult to adlib with so many subs. If he had the bye week to prepare and plan they might have done something creative.
Edit: I would really look forward to a rematch in the SB because we'd have Bowman and A Smith back, a healthy Brock, Culliver and a potentially upgraded center. It would still be one heck of a game!
Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I was just watching NFLN and they were describing how you defeat Manning. You'll never guess what the game plan was...queue Rodney Harrison's quote.
4-3 defense, man press coverage at the LOS (esp. jam) which allows your pessure to get there and don't be afraid to bring pressure up the gut as well in conjunction with that man, tight, press coverage at the LOS. Of course, they were only showing highlights of 4-3 teams like Seattle, Indy, Jets, etc. But you get the idea.
What did we do? Drop 8, "rush" (using this loosely) 3 = zero pass rush. 22 for 26 with 3 dropped passes and only played 3 quarters. 42 points.
There is no way a SF coordinator could have a poor game plan, right? #blamepersonnel
Originally posted by CMIO:
Most of this could have been negated with an effective pass rush. If we played press man and set up some blitz packages (as RexRyan did last week against Denver), we would've or could've had considerable success. Again, we relied on our front 4 to pressure Manning, and set all our guys back, thinking that more guys covering ground would close gaps available to Manning for easy completions.
Mission failed. Manning is a surgeon, and if you give him enough time, he'll find the open guy no matter how tight the coverage. This game was not lost because of Manning, but rather in the trenches. Our oline could not protect Kap, and our cline could not pressure Peyton. Simple as that.
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I was just watching NFLN and they were describing how you defeat Manning. You'll never guess what the game plan was...queue Rodney Harrison's quote.
4-3 defense, man press coverage at the LOS (esp. jam) which allows your pessure to get there and don't be afraid to bring pressure up the gut as well in conjunction with that man, tight, press coverage at the LOS. Of course, they were only showing highlights of 4-3 teams like Seattle, Indy, Jets, etc. But you get the idea.
What did we do? Drop 8, "rush" (using this loosely) 3 = zero pass rush. 22 for 26 with 3 dropped passes and only played 3 quarters. 42 points.
There is no way a SF coordinator could have a poor game plan, right? #blamepersonnel
Before the game I thought they should use an extra safety to help disguise some blitzes, but then Ward was out and my thoughts changed...again. LOL! It seemed that everytime I considered a plan someone was out making it less likely to be successful. Dropping LBs into coverage while blitzing DBs...not with three of the top four LBs out. Not sure how Lynch would cover but doubt he has the D down well enough to be effective. Even thought about a 3/0/8 with eight DBs and no LBs...but there weren't enough healthy DBs. Then I thought...how about a 0/0/11 and use Kaepernick and Hyde back there...
Not sure Fangio could do much with all the injuries cropping up. The back ups probably had the basics down but it's difficult to adlib with so many subs. If he had the bye week to prepare and plan they might have done something creative.
Edit: I would really look forward to a rematch in the SB because we'd have Bowman and A Smith back, a healthy Brock, Culliver and a potentially upgraded center. It would still be one heck of a game!
Originally posted by CMIO:
You don't need an NFL player to point that out brother
Several arm chair coaches posted this in the pregame thread, gameday thread, and postgame thread. It was obvious that with a depleted defense, the worst possible thing we could do is give Manning time to find an open receiver -- this was exacerbated by our lack of pass rush in recent weeks.
Don't know what Fangio was thinking sitting guys back and hoping that Manning would throw 6 picks
Originally posted by CMIO:
Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I was just watching NFLN and they were describing how you defeat Manning. You'll never guess what the game plan was...queue Rodney Harrison's quote.
4-3 defense, man press coverage at the LOS (esp. jam) which allows your pessure to get there and don't be afraid to bring pressure up the gut as well in conjunction with that man, tight, press coverage at the LOS. Of course, they were only showing highlights of 4-3 teams like Seattle, Indy, Jets, etc. But you get the idea.
What did we do? Drop 8, "rush" (using this loosely) 3 = zero pass rush. 22 for 26 with 3 dropped passes and only played 3 quarters. 42 points.
There is no way a SF coordinator could have a poor game plan, right? #blamepersonnelOriginally posted by CMIO:
Most of this could have been negated with an effective pass rush. If we played press man and set up some blitz packages (as RexRyan did last week against Denver), we would've or could've had considerable success. Again, we relied on our front 4 to pressure Manning, and set all our guys back, thinking that more guys covering ground would close gaps available to Manning for easy completions.
Mission failed. Manning is a surgeon, and if you give him enough time, he'll find the open guy no matter how tight the coverage. This game was not lost because of Manning, but rather in the trenches. Our oline could not protect Kap, and our cline could not pressure Peyton. Simple as that.
You don't need an NFL player to point that out brother
Several arm chair coaches posted this in the pregame thread, gameday thread, and postgame thread. It was obvious that with a depleted defense, the worst possible thing we could do is give Manning time to find an open receiver -- this was exacerbated by our lack of pass rush in recent weeks.
Don't know what Fangio was thinking sitting guys back and hoping that Manning would throw 6 picks
Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Cannot really get mad at fangio for this loss. The offense needed to put up at least 30 points for us to even have a chance. 35+ most likely for a win. Because we got so behind we let them play their gameplan on offense however they liked and there was no mental pressure on manning to do anything. Now if we had scored 30 points and lost in either a 4th quarter collapse or never had a one possession game in the 4th quarter I would be upset at Fangio.
Originally posted by NCommand:Lynch is a rookie and limits the options for inventive plays.
That is a tough hand to be dealt but if anyone can manage it, it's Fangio. Let's see who we had to start the game:
DL: McDonald - Williams - Smith (no changes here)
OLB: Brooks & Lynch (no changes here)
Two fill in players rather than one...makes a huge difference losing Bowman but then losing Willis more than compounds the problems.
ILB: Wilhoite & Borland (for Willis)
Ward being out limits subbing...might not be a problem but against Manning I'd want as much help as possible.
S: Reid & Bethea (no changes here)
Slot: Cook or Cox or both? (for Ward). Ward has been "decent" at best thus far. I would have been injured if I knew I was playing Manning. LOL. I heard Cook started and then Cox slid inside to slot once Cook got hurt more later in the game? If confirmed, Cook would be a very odd choice here. Another report noted that when Cox slid inside to the slot, Johnson started outside for his "fisrt start, essentially." No issues with that! In fact, I love Brock and Johnson outside with Cox in the slot a lot!Cook is new to the defense, Brock is coming back rusty...the moves are what they are. I suppose fangio had his reasons, might be trying to help new guys be in the best postions for them to succeed.
LCB: Brock (for Culliver); you'd think this would be an instant upgrade or at least stalemate as Cully played poor last game.
RCB: Cox. I don't know why Fangio moved the "hot hand" at LCB to right when Brock is more used to playing both RCB and LCB and RCB, IIRC, is his more natural side?
I thought this as well. Too many new guys, including Cook, to be creative. It seemed to me that the only way the niners could stop Manning is through creativity...which was lost when so many vets were missing. Cook, Lynch, Wihoite, Borland...heck, even Bethea is new this year. Fangio is getting everyone up to speed but they can''t all be comfortable yet...let alone playing with 100% knowledge of the scheme.
Debate...I read a report on FB that confirmed what I thought; ESPN (Louis Riddick) said "#49ers pass def. vs. #Broncos painfully basic and easy to read. Like 1st day of training camp stuff for P. Manning to figure out #nochance"
I figured we'd be more vanilla with defensive alignments perhaps with Wilhoite out there relaying the play calls instead of Willis.
In short, you can still come up and play man and jam-press with Cox, Brock and Johnson to start the game...play off coverage as well...come up and press with no jam...blitz off the (jam) press (esp. with Bethea). Even Bethea got into the act some by coming up in press against Welker but he DIDN'T jam him and gave him a clean release and naturally, got beat b/c of it. You don't think Bethea would love to punch Welker in the mouth at the LOS and make his job easy?Agree...not sure anything would have worked but I would have preferred an all out aggressive defense under these circumstances...let the guys play to their strengths even if it meant mistakes. Borland played tentatively at times and I believe it was an attempt to limit mistakes rather than attacking.
Anyhow, lesson learned...I hope.Indeed! I like the fact that many of these guys got some experience...bodes well for the playoffs if they are needed.
Originally posted by NCommand:
That's called prevent-a-win defense "hoping" Manning goes Tony Romo for us. Not!
Originally posted by NCommand:
Like I said previously, thl, I was opposed to blitzing although the numbers seem to demonstrate as such against Manning. You defended Fangio's gameplan...isn't that the same as agreeing with it? If you believe that while also seeing the end results, I'll respect that viewpoint as well but you can understand why I'd question that defense. There seems to be this theory that you need 4 or 5 Richard Sherman's to play jam-press effectively and that if you do get beat at the LOS, every play will turn into an automatic TD. That simply isn't true. How many DB's have effectively jammed us over the years (Ravens, Hawks 3rd stringers, S's, Denvers CB's not named Talib, etc.). All you need to do is have decent technique at the LOS and challenge the WR (be an obstacle) to throw off the route and timing and buy your pass rush an extra second. It often times makes the QB hesitate. Film? Go watch the INT you posted in the film thread. You'll see a DB jam-press Stevie (and mostly lost at the LOS) and yet, it was still enough to throw off the route and end in an INT. And the DB lost a bit and STILL was able to regroup and stay in his hip pocket making a very tight window to throw in and he still had help over the top. So this myth that we can't play jam-press sometimes with press-equipped CB's in Culliver, Cook, Johnson, Cox, Brock, etc. (even the one's that played in the Denver game) I just don't buy.
I believe the WORST game plan you can play against Manning is the one we just demonstrated (dropping Brooks back in coverage, ILB's with 7-8 back and 3 rushers). And I don't care if we have Aldon, Bowman, Willis, Brock 100%, Cox, Ward 100%, etc. if you try that scheme against Manning, he's going to pick you apart. He just is. If you disagree, no worries at all. We can just agree to disagree and move on.