Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by DelCed2486:

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.

That's been my contention, that the Niners should have tried to bring more pressure up the middle while also not giving so much cushion. Sure blitzing has an inherent risk, but so does allowing an all-time great QB just stand in the pocket eating a sandwich and pick you apart with passes to receivers who waltz off the line unmolested.

I guess I don't understand why Fangio thought the "keep everything in front of us an make the tackle" approach was the way to go vs Manning, and REALLY don't get why he stuck with it when it was very apparent within the first few minutes of that game it wasn't going to work.

But also as I said earlier, this was a perfect storm kind of game and it still might not have made much of a difference....although sure would've been nice to find out rather than just stick with the original (bad) plan.

For sure. If dropping 8 with 3 rushers was working, you bet...no problem. Stay with what's working. But if not, it's time to adjust and switch it up. And again, it's not like the scouting book isn't out on how to attack and beat Manning. The formula is well known. We'll probably see it tonight with the Chargers. I'm curious to see if they'll challenge the WR's and allow the pass rush to get there...a combo of disguised pressure esp. up the middle, etc. They too, are out a couple DB's including Flowers and I'm sure they watched our game and said, "Ummm, yeahhh...think we better go a different direction."

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
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)

Lynch is a rookie and limits the options for inventive plays.

ILB: Wilhoite & Borland (for Willis)

Two fill in players rather than one...makes a huge difference losing Bowman but then losing Willis more than compounds the problems.

S: Reid & Bethea (no changes here)

Ward being out limits subbing...might not be a problem but against Manning I'd want as much help as possible.

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!
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think coming into the game, we were #2 in defense and that is the defense we should focus on...personnel losses from game 6 to game 7. We can't harp n players who haven't been there all season. We've played some damn good offenses during that stretch as well in Dallas, Eagles, Chicago and KC (and even the Rams and Cards let it fly).

Lynch - he's becoming more and more of a well-rounded SAM and I even saw a spin-move last game on the record-breaking TD. He's big and strong so he's been stunting inside as (freeing up others) and utilizing an outside pass rush. Where he IS limited is that he only plays the SAM spot right now.

Wilhoite - he's been playing very well for us so far so we shouldn't consider him a replacement player by any means at this juncture. But where he was green, was in relaying defensive calls and setting up alignments pre-snap.

Ward - was a loss schematically IMHO. Talent-wise he's been getting better but he has clearly been our weak link to this point. He got hurt last game so we slid Cox inside to the slot and brought in Johnson/Cook to play outside. And of course, Cox was everywhere, tipping balls up in the air, near INT's, knocking down passes, etc.

Cook/Johnson - both have been in our system for 6 months and have been playing outside in nickle and are #1 and #2 off the bench. I'd gladly take a lineup with Brock and Johnson/Cook outside with Cox inside at the slot. That's a damn fine trio right there!

Basically, I think the personnel excuses got overplayed quite a bit. We were hampered a bit in defensive alignments and depth beyond the starters in Brock, Cox and Johnson but we certainly could have played to their strengths and challenged Manning and the WR's at the LOS and bring more than just 3 rushers. That's all. Fangio dumbed down the play calls according to that report (although, according to jonnydel, we ran about 7 versions of off coverage schemes) and perhaps he just tossed in the towel trying to preserve his troops to win the war by losing this battle. I guess if that was the plan all along, this is why CK was seen laughing and smiling with his teammates on the sidelines after the INT?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by DelCed2486:

That's been my contention, that the Niners should have tried to bring more pressure up the middle while also not giving so much cushion. Sure blitzing has an inherent risk, but so does allowing an all-time great QB just stand in the pocket eating a sandwich and pick you apart with passes to receivers who waltz off the line unmolested.

I guess I don't understand why Fangio thought the "keep everything in front of us an make the tackle" approach was the way to go vs Manning, and REALLY don't get why he stuck with it when it was very apparent within the first few minutes of that game it wasn't going to work.

But also as I said earlier, this was a perfect storm kind of game and it still might not have made much of a difference....although sure would've been nice to find out rather than just stick with the original (bad) plan.

For sure. If dropping 8 with 3 rushers was working, you bet...no problem. Stay with what's working. But if not, it's time to adjust and switch it up. And again, it's not like the scouting book isn't out on how to attack and beat Manning. The formula is well known. We'll probably see it tonight with the Chargers. I'm curious to see if they'll challenge the WR's and allow the pass rush to get there...a combo of disguised pressure esp. up the middle, etc. They too, are out a couple DB's including Flowers and I'm sure they watched our game and said, "Ummm, yeahhh...think we better go a different direction."

And speaking of Denver playing SD tonight, it must be nice that the Broncos get 2 consecutive prime-time games at home, with both being against teams coming off short weeks...and one of those teams was the Niners, who also played 2 straight prime-time games but both were on the road.

I think they tanked this game slightly. They knew we had little chance in beating them with so many guys out, so why show them our best plays? We didn't dial up any complex blitz packages or anything really.

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think coming into the game, we were #2 in defense and that is the defense we should focus on...personnel losses from game 6 to game 7. We can't harp n players who haven't been there all season. We've played some damn good offenses during that stretch as well in Dallas, Eagles, Chicago and KC (and even the Rams and Cards let it fly).

Lynch - he's becoming more and more of a well-rounded SAM and I even saw a spin-move last game on the record-breaking TD. He's big and strong so he's been stunting inside as (freeing up others) and utilizing an outside pass rush. Where he IS limited is that he only plays the SAM spot right now.

Wilhoite - he's been playing very well for us so far so we shouldn't consider him a replacement player by any means at this juncture. But where he was green, was in relaying defensive calls and setting up alignments pre-snap.

Ward - was a loss schematically IMHO. Talent-wise he's been getting better but he has clearly been our weak link to this point. He got hurt last game so we slid Cox inside to the slot and brought in Johnson/Cook to play outside. And of course, Cox was everywhere, tipping balls up in the air, near INT's, knocking down passes, etc.

Cook/Johnson - both have been in our system for 6 months and have been playing outside in nickle and are #1 and #2 off the bench. I'd gladly take a lineup with Brock and Johnson/Cook outside with Cox inside at the slot. That's a damn fine trio right there!

Basically, I think the personnel excuses got overplayed quite a bit. We were hampered a bit in defensive alignments and depth beyond the starters in Brock, Cox and Johnson but we certainly could have played to their strengths and challenged Manning and the WR's at the LOS and bring more than just 3 rushers. That's all. Fangio dumbed down the play calls according to that report (although, according to jonnydel, we ran about 7 versions of off coverage schemes) and perhaps he just tossed in the towel trying to preserve his troops to win the war by losing this battle. I guess if that was the plan all along, this is why CK was seen laughing and smiling with his teammates on the sidelines after the INT?

Disagree and agree! I think people are harping on the loss too much and blaming Fangio and the D too much. Fangio does run a conservative defense most of the time, but he can do that with so many great players--Willis, J Smith, A Smith, Bowman being the best. There were a few key issues that made the game a mess defensively:

1. Injuries (Bowman, Willis, Culliver, Ward)
2. Suspension (A Smith)
3. Rust (Brock)
4. Rookie miscues (Borland, Lunch)

That represents 5 out of 11 spots being total changes leading up to this game...and I would contend that a change to a unit impacts all the members of the unit. Moving DBs around, as you pointed out, might create some tentative play. LBs were like a second or third string pre season roster. The niners would have a game with Denver at full strength...the mash unit had very little chance. I had hoped they could scheme their way to a win but it seemed they had to play conservatively as that's what the new guys could do knowledge-wise.

If they had taken my advice, they might have lost by a 100 or maybe done better. I wanted an all out attack defense hitting Manning before, during and after every throw. I wanted Manning to be looking for Lynch and Reid on every play, wondering when they would hit him. I wanted him running to Justin Smith in confusion.

This dreamland scheme might have been disasterous...but it does work well in hindsightland!

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think coming into the game, we were #2 in defense and that is the defense we should focus on...personnel losses from game 6 to game 7. We can't harp n players who haven't been there all season. We've played some damn good offenses during that stretch as well in Dallas, Eagles, Chicago and KC (and even the Rams and Cards let it fly).

Lynch - he's becoming more and more of a well-rounded SAM and I even saw a spin-move last game on the record-breaking TD. He's big and strong so he's been stunting inside as (freeing up others) and utilizing an outside pass rush. Where he IS limited is that he only plays the SAM spot right now.

Wilhoite - he's been playing very well for us so far so we shouldn't consider him a replacement player by any means at this juncture. But where he was green, was in relaying defensive calls and setting up alignments pre-snap.

Ward - was a loss schematically IMHO. Talent-wise he's been getting better but he has clearly been our weak link to this point. He got hurt last game so we slid Cox inside to the slot and brought in Johnson/Cook to play outside. And of course, Cox was everywhere, tipping balls up in the air, near INT's, knocking down passes, etc.

Cook/Johnson - both have been in our system for 6 months and have been playing outside in nickle and are #1 and #2 off the bench. I'd gladly take a lineup with Brock and Johnson/Cook outside with Cox inside at the slot. That's a damn fine trio right there!

Basically, I think the personnel excuses got overplayed quite a bit. We were hampered a bit in defensive alignments and depth beyond the starters in Brock, Cox and Johnson but we certainly could have played to their strengths and challenged Manning and the WR's at the LOS and bring more than just 3 rushers. That's all. Fangio dumbed down the play calls according to that report (although, according to jonnydel, we ran about 7 versions of off coverage schemes) and perhaps he just tossed in the towel trying to preserve his troops to win the war by losing this battle. I guess if that was the plan all along, this is why CK was seen laughing and smiling with his teammates on the sidelines after the INT?

Disagree and agree! I think people are harping on the loss too much and blaming Fangio and the D too much. Fangio does run a conservative defense most of the time, but he can do that with so many great players--Willis, J Smith, A Smith, Bowman being the best. There were a few key issues that made the game a mess defensively:

1. Injuries (Bowman, Willis, Culliver, Ward)
2. Suspension (A Smith)
3. Rust (Brock)
4. Rookie miscues (Borland, Lunch)

That represents 5 out of 11 spots being total changes leading up to this game...and I would contend that a change to a unit impacts all the members of the unit. Moving DBs around, as you pointed out, might create some tentative play. LBs were like a second or third string pre season roster. The niners would have a game with Denver at full strength...the mash unit had very little chance. I had hoped they could scheme their way to a win but it seemed they had to play conservatively as that's what the new guys could do knowledge-wise.

If they had taken my advice, they might have lost by a 100 or maybe done better. I wanted an all out attack defense hitting Manning before, during and after every throw. I wanted Manning to be looking for Lynch and Reid on every play, wondering when they would hit him. I wanted him running to Justin Smith in confusion.

This dreamland scheme might have been disasterous...but it does work well in hindsightland!

LOL. You're way more aggressive than I am! Haha. I would have just started out in press on one side with Brock off mostly, bring Bethea down more and keep Reid high, rush the usual with a few MLB blitzes, Bethea off the edge, etc. And if the jams were working, stay with it and force them to adjust (i.e. start playing bunch formations). I'd mix in a lot of off coverage as well as needed...run up to the LOS and then back off just before the snap, maybe even run a blitz or two with our CB's off jam/press man.

#2 is #2 and for this game, Culliver was already going to be on the bench for Brock. And Cox is always a better option in the slot over Ward (rookie). I actually see both moves as an upgrade and I love Johnson outside (he can play jam-press and off right now). So really, it's just the loss of Willis for Borland and Borland lead the team in tackles so not a bad game overall but neither Wilhoite nor Borland are going to be as savy in coverage (even with 8 back). It did hurt us in DB depth and how far we were playing Brock off, you may not have been able to be as physical with him (which he loves)...that toe and rust made it difficult for him to break quickly and probably square up effectively and defensive alignments were going to be questionable with Wilhoite making those calls (not the defensive calls themselves).

But it's all good...I would have liked to see us try at least but like I said earlier, sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. We'll get there!

Some good stuff in here. I can't believe we're still #2 against the pass in total yards after the Bronco's game. LOL


Oct 23, 2014 | 12:20 pm

49ers bye-week grades: defense

Chris BidermanNiners Digest

While the offensive continues to try and figure what it's good at, the 49ers' defense continued to play well despite missing a number of key players. We took a look at each position and offered grades for their play through the season's first seven games.

Before we take a look at grades, here's where the 49ers defense is statistically while players enjoy their bye week:

Total Defense (NFL ranks)

Scoring: 23.6 (20th)
Yards per game: 206 (2nd)
Yards per play: 5.2 (9th)
3rd-down conversion rate: 47.44% (29th)
Opponents Red Zone TD rate: 68.42% (29th)

Run Defense

Rush play rate: 36.67% (4th)
Yards per rush: 4.0 (12th)
Rushing yards per game: 84.9 (5th)

Pass Defense

Pass play rate: 63.33% (29th)
Completion rate: 58.70% (3rd)
Yards per pass: 6.3 (6th)
Pass yards per game: 221.1 (10th)
Sack rate: 4.63% (21st)
INT rate: 2.83% (11th)

A few notes: take away the 21 points allowed the Eagles in Week 4 that didn't come from Chip Kelly's offense, and the 49ers have allowed 20.6 points per game, which would rank in the top 10 of the league.

Otherwise, San Francisco's patchwork defense is still ranked second in the NFL in yardage, despite allowing a season-high 419 in last week's drubbing in Denver.

The biggest areas for improvement? Third-down and red-zone scoring. The 49ers are still near the bottom of the league in both categories. The leading culprit: the pass rush. It has gotten better as the season has gone on - thanks largely to Aaron Lynch's insertion to the lineup in passing situations with the improvement of Dan Skuta and Ahmad Brooks. It will be aided significantly by the eventual return of top pass rusher Aldon Smith.

To the grades, calculated on an (*unscientific*) 100-point scale:

Defensive line: 91

Reasoning: The sack and tackle stats might not show it, but the team's defensive line play has been outstanding in the first seven games. The production of Justin Smith, Ian Williams and Ray McDonald has helped mask the loss of NaVorro Bowman defending the run by allowing Michael Wilhoite to avoid blocks from offensive lineman.

The 49ers have the league's fifth-ranked rushing defense and allowed more than 100-yards total in just three games this season (Cowboys, Chiefs and Broncos). Smith is healthy and playing at his highest level since 2012, before he sustained his torn triceps injury. Williams is having a standout season after undergoing four surgeries to repair his broken ankle suffered early in 2013.

They could afford to get to the quarterback more frequently, the return of Aldon Smith should help get Justin Smith in more one-on-one situations on passing plays.

Linebackers: 84

Reasoning: Patrick Willis continues to play at an All-Pro level amid the makeshift group. Wilhoite is continuing to get better in just about every phase. But the reason why this grade isn't higher is largely due to the team's outside linebackers that have struggled to pressure the quarterback.

Lynch and Dan Skuta have had good seasons, but Brooks and Corey Lemonier have been disappointments, bringing the grade down. Lemonier, who came into the season with high expectations, was surpassed by Lynch in Week 4 after registering just one quarterback pressure and hit in 70 pass rushing attempts, according to Pro Football Focus.

Brooks, a two-time second-team All-Pro, leads the defense with five penalties. His play has improved lately, and the addition of Smith will help him stay fresh while coordinator Vic Fangio will continue to keep in the rotation. Lynch is the 49ers' best third pass-rushing option in years.

Cornerbacks: 86

Reasoning: Look at where the 49ers started the season with this group. They lost both their starters from the last three seasons in Carlos Rogers and Tarell Brown, inserted a player that missed his third season with an ACL tear, lost their No. 1 corner that made his first-ever Week 1 start, and played a rookie at nickel, arguably the toughest position to learn to defense.

The result? The league's 10th-rated pass defense without having the luxury of good pass rush. The safety play has a lot to do with that, but Perrish Cox and Chris Culliver held their own without Tramaine Brock since Week 1 - before Brock came back and struggled against the Broncos. Cox has been one of the league's best corners throughout the first seven games, making three interceptions and allowing 53.4 passer rating in coverage. Rookie Dontae Johnson has shown promise in his limited time on the field while Chris Cook is fitting well into his reserve role. And rookie Jimmie Ward was improving by the week before his quad injury kept him out of last week's loss.

Considering the volume question marks coming into the season, San Francisco's corners have been a pleasant surprise. But as their weaknesses are dissected more and more by opponents on film, fighting off regression will be the mandate in the remaining nine games.

Safeties: 93

Reasoning: The defense's best group through the first seven weeks. Antoine Bethea has been the right addition to replace the hard-hitting, and flag-collecting, Donte Whitner. Eric Reid is continuing to play beyond his years and is becoming an extension of Willis in the back of the secondary.

Prior to Sunday night's shellacking, the 49ers allowed just 10 of 44 completions on attempts longer than 20-yards down field, which is a credit to the discipline and execution of Reid and Bethea. Neither had a good game in Denver, which dropped their grade a few points. But with the pass rush expected to improve, along with the eventual return of Bowman in the pipeline, the safeties should continue to play well as the season goes on.

http://sfo.scout.com/story/1472304-49ers-bye-week-grades-defense

Time to give some big props to this defensive staff and the "replacement players."

Fangio to Donatell to Tomsula, etc. and to Bowman and Willis to also chime in and help Wilhoite along (and now Borland).

Big finds by Baalke in Bethea, Cook, Lynch, Johnson and even Ward is coming along and getting better and better.

I'm super stoked for Ian Williams who's been a heaven-sent. Where is buck...we need to finish the replacement players thread!

Remember all those freaking out about the losses of Rogers, Brown and Whitner? Watch out for this secondary once Brock is 100% back in his groove on onse side with Cox in the other and Ward in the slot (although, I'd probably prefer Brock and Johnson/Cook/Cully outside and Cox inside at the slot) but the point is, there is a ton of depth there and a ton of upside and like we predicted, we'd see more TO's and big plays and again, that's w/o much of a consisent pass rush, to say the least...and a lot of untimely nicks/injuries back there and up to 3 All Pro LB's missing.

Impressive. And think of who we faced...no easy tasks. Dallas (run and PA pass), Eagles (pass everywhere), Chiefs (Charles and Alex), Denver (nevermind), Rams and Cards (no film on the QB's and their coaches instructing them to just "go-for-it!").

Looking forward to healthy players and everyone back with depth and all the units solidifying together. Team defense!

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. You're way more aggressive than I am! Haha. I would have just started out in press on one side with Brock off mostly, bring Bethea down more and keep Reid high, rush the usual with a few MLB blitzes, Bethea off the edge, etc. And if the jams were working, stay with it and force them to adjust (i.e. start playing bunch formations). I'd mix in a lot of off coverage as well as needed...run up to the LOS and then back off just before the snap, maybe even run a blitz or two with our CB's off jam/press man.

#2 is #2 and for this game, Culliver was already going to be on the bench for Brock. And Cox is always a better option in the slot over Ward (rookie). I actually see both moves as an upgrade and I love Johnson outside (he can play jam-press and off right now). So really, it's just the loss of Willis for Borland and Borland lead the team in tackles so not a bad game overall but neither Wilhoite nor Borland are going to be as savy in coverage (even with 8 back). It did hurt us in DB depth and how far we were playing Brock off, you may not have been able to be as physical with him (which he loves)...that toe and rust made it difficult for him to break quickly and probably square up effectively and defensive alignments were going to be questionable with Wilhoite making those calls (not the defensive calls themselves).

But it's all good...I would have liked to see us try at least but like I said earlier, sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. We'll get there!

It may not be a case of talent level as much as communication. Having guys shift positions, return from injury, replace...all change the communication dynamic. When many are rookies or inexperienced with the team this can be critical. I don't think we are far apart in our thoughts...but I'll be the first to admit I'm not really sure there was a good answer against the Broncos.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Time to give some big props to this defensive staff and the "replacement players."

Fangio to Donatell to Tomsula, etc. and to Bowman and Willis to also chime in and help Wilhoite along (and now Borland).

Big finds by Baalke in Bethea, Cook, Lynch, Johnson and even Ward is coming along and getting better and better.

I'm super stoked for Ian Williams who's been a heaven-sent. Where is buck...we need to finish the replacement players thread!

Remember all those freaking out about the losses of Rogers, Brown and Whitner? Watch out for this secondary once Brock is 100% back in his groove on onse side with Cox in the other and Ward in the slot (although, I'd probably prefer Brock and Johnson/Cook/Cully outside and Cox inside at the slot) but the point is, there is a ton of depth there and a ton of upside and like we predicted, we'd see more TO's and big plays and again, that's w/o much of a consisent pass rush, to say the least...and a lot of untimely nicks/injuries back there and up to 3 All Pro LB's missing.

Impressive. And think of who we faced...no easy tasks. Dallas (run and PA pass), Eagles (pass everywhere), Chiefs (Charles and Alex), Denver (nevermind), Rams and Cards (no film on the QB's and their coaches instructing them to just "go-for-it!").

Looking forward to healthy players and everyone back with depth and all the units solidifying together. Team defense!

100% agree!

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:

LOL. You're way more aggressive than I am! Haha. I would have just started out in press on one side with Brock off mostly, bring Bethea down more and keep Reid high, rush the usual with a few MLB blitzes, Bethea off the edge, etc. And if the jams were working, stay with it and force them to adjust (i.e. start playing bunch formations). I'd mix in a lot of off coverage as well as needed...run up to the LOS and then back off just before the snap, maybe even run a blitz or two with our CB's off jam/press man.

#2 is #2 and for this game, Culliver was already going to be on the bench for Brock. And Cox is always a better option in the slot over Ward (rookie). I actually see both moves as an upgrade and I love Johnson outside (he can play jam-press and off right now). So really, it's just the loss of Willis for Borland and Borland lead the team in tackles so not a bad game overall but neither Wilhoite nor Borland are going to be as savy in coverage (even with 8 back). It did hurt us in DB depth and how far we were playing Brock off, you may not have been able to be as physical with him (which he loves)...that toe and rust made it difficult for him to break quickly and probably square up effectively and defensive alignments were going to be questionable with Wilhoite making those calls (not the defensive calls themselves).

But it's all good...I would have liked to see us try at least but like I said earlier, sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. We'll get there!

It may not be a case of talent level as much as communication. Having guys shift positions, return from injury, replace...all change the communication dynamic. When many are rookies or inexperienced with the team this can be critical. I don't think we are far apart in our thoughts...but I'll be the first to admit I'm not really sure there was a good answer against the Broncos.

Gotcha. Watching how the Chargers are playing them now. Bringing lots of heat... give short stuff but tackle right away. No points in 1Q for Manning so far down a few starters too including Flowers. Well see how long they can hang.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. You're way more aggressive than I am! Haha. I would have just started out in press on one side with Brock off mostly, bring Bethea down more and keep Reid high, rush the usual with a few MLB blitzes, Bethea off the edge, etc. And if the jams were working, stay with it and force them to adjust (i.e. start playing bunch formations). I'd mix in a lot of off coverage as well as needed...run up to the LOS and then back off just before the snap, maybe even run a blitz or two with our CB's off jam/press man.

#2 is #2 and for this game, Culliver was already going to be on the bench for Brock. And Cox is always a better option in the slot over Ward (rookie). I actually see both moves as an upgrade and I love Johnson outside (he can play jam-press and off right now). So really, it's just the loss of Willis for Borland and Borland lead the team in tackles so not a bad game overall but neither Wilhoite nor Borland are going to be as savy in coverage (even with 8 back). It did hurt us in DB depth and how far we were playing Brock off, you may not have been able to be as physical with him (which he loves)...that toe and rust made it difficult for him to break quickly and probably square up effectively and defensive alignments were going to be questionable with Wilhoite making those calls (not the defensive calls themselves).

But it's all good...I would have liked to see us try at least but like I said earlier, sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. We'll get there!

It may not be a case of talent level as much as communication. Having guys shift positions, return from injury, replace...all change the communication dynamic. When many are rookies or inexperienced with the team this can be critical. I don't think we are far apart in our thoughts...but I'll be the first to admit I'm not really sure there was a good answer against the Broncos.

Gotcha. Watching how the Chargers are playing them now. Bringing lots of heat... give short stuff but tackle right away. No points in 1Q for Manning so far down a few starters too including Flowers. Well see how long they can hang.

that's the plan. let them dink and dunk and you make the tackle that's what this team is supposedly priding itself on being good tacklers.. so let them catch it then tackle

we played prevent defense the entire damn game.

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

that's the plan. let them dink and dunk and you make the tackle that's what this team is supposedly priding itself on being good tacklers.. so let them catch it then tackle

we played prevent defense the entire damn game.

Just watched the 2nd TD. Why in God's green earth would you come up in press man against the fastest WR on the field and NOT jam his ass? Letting him clean off the LOS in man press is like giving him a 5 yard head start in a 40 yard dash! SMH.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
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)

Lynch is a rookie and limits the options for inventive plays.

ILB: Wilhoite & Borland (for Willis)

Two fill in players rather than one...makes a huge difference losing Bowman but then losing Willis more than compounds the problems.

S: Reid & Bethea (no changes here)

Ward being out limits subbing...might not be a problem but against Manning I'd want as much help as possible.

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!
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think coming into the game, we were #2 in defense and that is the defense we should focus on...personnel losses from game 6 to game 7. We can't harp n players who haven't been there all season. We've played some damn good offenses during that stretch as well in Dallas, Eagles, Chicago and KC (and even the Rams and Cards let it fly).

Lynch - he's becoming more and more of a well-rounded SAM and I even saw a spin-move last game on the record-breaking TD. He's big and strong so he's been stunting inside as (freeing up others) and utilizing an outside pass rush. Where he IS limited is that he only plays the SAM spot right now.

Wilhoite - he's been playing very well for us so far so we shouldn't consider him a replacement player by any means at this juncture. But where he was green, was in relaying defensive calls and setting up alignments pre-snap.

Ward - was a loss schematically IMHO. Talent-wise he's been getting better but he has clearly been our weak link to this point. He got hurt last game so we slid Cox inside to the slot and brought in Johnson/Cook to play outside. And of course, Cox was everywhere, tipping balls up in the air, near INT's, knocking down passes, etc.

Cook/Johnson - both have been in our system for 6 months and have been playing outside in nickle and are #1 and #2 off the bench. I'd gladly take a lineup with Brock and Johnson/Cook outside with Cox inside at the slot. That's a damn fine trio right there!

Basically, I think the personnel excuses got overplayed quite a bit. We were hampered a bit in defensive alignments and depth beyond the starters in Brock, Cox and Johnson but we certainly could have played to their strengths and challenged Manning and the WR's at the LOS and bring more than just 3 rushers. That's all. Fangio dumbed down the play calls according to that report (although, according to jonnydel, we ran about 7 versions of off coverage schemes) and perhaps he just tossed in the towel trying to preserve his troops to win the war by losing this battle. I guess if that was the plan all along, this is why CK was seen laughing and smiling with his teammates on the sidelines after the INT?

After a while he prolly just went milli vanilli with the play calling... no need to show schemes since they could be the team we face in the SB.

Originally posted by LVJay:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
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)

Lynch is a rookie and limits the options for inventive plays.

ILB: Wilhoite & Borland (for Willis)

Two fill in players rather than one...makes a huge difference losing Bowman but then losing Willis more than compounds the problems.

S: Reid & Bethea (no changes here)

Ward being out limits subbing...might not be a problem but against Manning I'd want as much help as possible.

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!
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think coming into the game, we were #2 in defense and that is the defense we should focus on...personnel losses from game 6 to game 7. We can't harp n players who haven't been there all season. We've played some damn good offenses during that stretch as well in Dallas, Eagles, Chicago and KC (and even the Rams and Cards let it fly).

Lynch - he's becoming more and more of a well-rounded SAM and I even saw a spin-move last game on the record-breaking TD. He's big and strong so he's been stunting inside as (freeing up others) and utilizing an outside pass rush. Where he IS limited is that he only plays the SAM spot right now.

Wilhoite - he's been playing very well for us so far so we shouldn't consider him a replacement player by any means at this juncture. But where he was green, was in relaying defensive calls and setting up alignments pre-snap.

Ward - was a loss schematically IMHO. Talent-wise he's been getting better but he has clearly been our weak link to this point. He got hurt last game so we slid Cox inside to the slot and brought in Johnson/Cook to play outside. And of course, Cox was everywhere, tipping balls up in the air, near INT's, knocking down passes, etc.

Cook/Johnson - both have been in our system for 6 months and have been playing outside in nickle and are #1 and #2 off the bench. I'd gladly take a lineup with Brock and Johnson/Cook outside with Cox inside at the slot. That's a damn fine trio right there!

Basically, I think the personnel excuses got overplayed quite a bit. We were hampered a bit in defensive alignments and depth beyond the starters in Brock, Cox and Johnson but we certainly could have played to their strengths and challenged Manning and the WR's at the LOS and bring more than just 3 rushers. That's all. Fangio dumbed down the play calls according to that report (although, according to jonnydel, we ran about 7 versions of off coverage schemes) and perhaps he just tossed in the towel trying to preserve his troops to win the war by losing this battle. I guess if that was the plan all along, this is why CK was seen laughing and smiling with his teammates on the sidelines after the INT?

After a while he prolly just went milli vanilli with the play calling... no need to show schemes since they could be the team we face in the SB.

Nah, personnel excuses are just fine considering what Fangio had to work with. No question adjustments and maybe even playcalling were limited.

They played press man and mixed it up a lot. So the jam/press argument is pretty invalid.