Follow us on Bluesky →

There are 258 users in the forums

Week 3 Arizona Cardinals coaches film analysis

Shop Find 49ers gear online
Oct 3, 2015 at 7:38 PM
Originally posted by thl408:
More Fitz killing zone coverage in the 1st quarter.
ARI will run a flood concept to their right to get a vertical stretch. A lot was said about why the OLBs are covering Fitz in the slot. They are not, they are in zone coverage. Anytime a QB sees this (LB lined up on WR), he knows it's most likely zone coverage because no DC in his right mind would ask for his OLB to man cover a slot WR.
versus Tampa2 - Lynch (59) is the Hook/Curl defender; Brock (26) is the Flat defender.


Lynch will shove Fitz as Fitz goes by (not shown). Lynch then sees the TE running to the flat. Lynch makes the mistake of following the TE to the flat (orange box). He should know that the flat belongs to Brock. Brock rides the WR up the sideline and is looking back to his flat zone responsibility. Because Lynch vacates his zone, when Fitz breaks to the outside, there is a nice passing lane for Palmer to work.


+16 yards. Notice Lynch get called out for his gaffe.


Zone coverage may seem simplistic, but there is a lot for the defender to think about. Since they are facing the play, they must recognize route combinations, what an offense may do given a down/distance/formation/tendency. Understand that if a route is coming their way, is there another route coming their way? If not, feel free to play the single route in their zone. If there is a second route coming towards them, don't get manipulated by the clearing action of the first route.

Are we in base against a 4 WR set??
Oct 3, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Originally posted by sdaddy101269:
Are we in base against a 4 WR set??

Yes. 4 WR's and 1 TE going out on routes, empty backfield.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on Oct 3, 2015 at 7:52 PM ]
Oct 3, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Originally posted by defenderDX:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
From what I am gathering here, though the players have played far from perfect, it seems like the poor play is more a result of the position the players have been put in rather than the poor efforts of the players themselves. Is that correct?

no.

absolutely 0 existence of pattern-matching despite every starting DB/LB being exposed to it under Fangio.

Wouldn't that still be a coaching/play call issue?
Oct 3, 2015 at 8:03 PM
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Originally posted by defenderDX:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
From what I am gathering here, though the players have played far from perfect, it seems like the poor play is more a result of the position the players have been put in rather than the poor efforts of the players themselves. Is that correct?

no.

absolutely 0 existence of pattern-matching despite every starting DB/LB being exposed to it under Fangio.

Wouldn't that still be a coaching/play call issue?

Yes. Still falls under the "not putting players in the best position to succeed" category to me.

But he his right in that scrapping the pattern match scheme we had under Fangio is a step backward. I don't know the reason for it, maybe Mangini feels it doesn't fit with the pre-snap disguise, post-snap trickery he wants to do. Our D under Fangio was fairly vanilla. We were going to run our scheme, no deception, try and beat it.
Oct 3, 2015 at 8:13 PM
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Originally posted by defenderDX:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
From what I am gathering here, though the players have played far from perfect, it seems like the poor play is more a result of the position the players have been put in rather than the poor efforts of the players themselves. Is that correct?

no.

absolutely 0 existence of pattern-matching despite every starting DB/LB being exposed to it under Fangio.

Wouldn't that still be a coaching/play call issue?

better question for thl and jonnydel. but looks as if it's just not apart of Mangini's scheme...... which is unfortunate...
Oct 3, 2015 at 8:44 PM
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by 24plus25er:
The thing that makes me mad is the fact that we could still have Fangio in the building. Tomsula wasn't an ideal pick as an HC, so we might as well have kept Fangio has the HC,and made Tomsula the DC. With the players we have our defense would be $$$, if we ran our scheme from last year with a few mew wrinkles.If we want to be a run first team you gotta have a tough defense first.
That is not the proper discussion thread.

BTW, we have interviewed Fangio for HC and werent convinced, neither was anyone in the league. Could you guys finally accept this fact please?

^^^THIS
Oct 3, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Originally posted by JDMathews49ers:
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by 24plus25er:
The thing that makes me mad is the fact that we could still have Fangio in the building. Tomsula wasn't an ideal pick as an HC, so we might as well have kept Fangio has the HC,and made Tomsula the DC. With the players we have our defense would be $$$, if we ran our scheme from last year with a few mew wrinkles.If we want to be a run first team you gotta have a tough defense first.
That is not the proper discussion thread.

BTW, we have interviewed Fangio for HC and werent convinced, neither was anyone in the league. Could you guys finally accept this fact please?

^^^THIS

Co-signed. I don't think Fangio would be the solution to the problem. The only difference is people would have felt better about the hiring, but I could care less about feelings.
Oct 3, 2015 at 9:45 PM
Originally posted by sdaddy101269:
Originally posted by thl408:
More Fitz killing zone coverage in the 1st quarter.
ARI will run a flood concept to their right to get a vertical stretch. A lot was said about why the OLBs are covering Fitz in the slot. They are not, they are in zone coverage. Anytime a QB sees this (LB lined up on WR), he knows it's most likely zone coverage because no DC in his right mind would ask for his OLB to man cover a slot WR.
versus Tampa2 - Lynch (59) is the Hook/Curl defender; Brock (26) is the Flat defender.


Lynch will shove Fitz as Fitz goes by (not shown). Lynch then sees the TE running to the flat. Lynch makes the mistake of following the TE to the flat (orange box). He should know that the flat belongs to Brock. Brock rides the WR up the sideline and is looking back to his flat zone responsibility. Because Lynch vacates his zone, when Fitz breaks to the outside, there is a nice passing lane for Palmer to work.


+16 yards. Notice Lynch get called out for his gaffe.


Zone coverage may seem simplistic, but there is a lot for the defender to think about. Since they are facing the play, they must recognize route combinations, what an offense may do given a down/distance/formation/tendency. Understand that if a route is coming their way, is there another route coming their way? If not, feel free to play the single route in their zone. If there is a second route coming towards them, don't get manipulated by the clearing action of the first route.

Are we in base against a 4 WR set??

The is the maddening thing -- WE ARE ALLOWED TO SUBSTITUTE TO MATCH THEIR PERSONNEL. Even if they tried to no-huddle, the play would have to be stopped. WHY THE F would Mangini leave the base defenders in there against 4-wide. It's downright ASININE. Personally, I think we should've had an extra DB in for most of the day like I hope we do against Rodgers.
[ Edited by OnTheClock on Oct 3, 2015 at 9:46 PM ]
Oct 3, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The is the maddening thing -- WE ARE ALLOWED TO SUBSTITUTE TO MATCH THEIR PERSONNEL. Even if they tried to no-huddle, the play would have to be stopped. WHY THE F would Mangini leave the base defenders in there against 4-wide. It's downright ASININE. Personally, I think we should've had an extra DB in for most of the day like I hope we do against Rodgers.

It makes no sense. Not only leaving our base out there against 4 wide, but a 3-man rush with our 2 best pass rushers dropping back in coverage.

You would think after 8 straight quarters of getting embarrassed defensively, he'll make the proper adjustments against GB. I hope....
Oct 3, 2015 at 10:32 PM
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The is the maddening thing -- WE ARE ALLOWED TO SUBSTITUTE TO MATCH THEIR PERSONNEL. Even if they tried to no-huddle, the play would have to be stopped. WHY THE F would Mangini leave the base defenders in there against 4-wide. It's downright ASININE. Personally, I think we should've had an extra DB in for most of the day like I hope we do against Rodgers.

It makes no sense. Not only leaving our base out there against 4 wide, but a 3-man rush with our 2 best pass rushers dropping back in coverage.

You would think after 8 straight quarters of getting embarrassed defensively, he'll make the proper adjustments against GB. I hope....

The better QBs when they faced us were quoted as saying that we don't do anything special which was what made us difficult in that they had to be patient and take what was given. Now, we are giving them a red carpet but are trying to make them find it. Unfortunately, QBs are smart these days and are finding it in less than 3 seconds.
Oct 4, 2015 at 12:19 AM
  • thl408
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 33,058
Originally posted by sdaddy101269:
Are we in base against a 4 WR set??

11 personnel. The slot WR to the bottom of the screen is a TE.
Oct 4, 2015 at 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The is the maddening thing -- WE ARE ALLOWED TO SUBSTITUTE TO MATCH THEIR PERSONNEL. Even if they tried to no-huddle, the play would have to be stopped. WHY THE F would Mangini leave the base defenders in there against 4-wide. It's downright ASININE. Personally, I think we should've had an extra DB in for most of the day like I hope we do against Rodgers.

It makes no sense. Not only leaving our base out there against 4 wide, but a 3-man rush with our 2 best pass rushers dropping back in coverage.

You would think after 8 straight quarters of getting embarrassed defensively, he'll make the proper adjustments against GB. I hope....

The better QBs when they faced us were quoted as saying that we don't do anything special which was what made us difficult in that they had to be patient and take what was given. Now, we are giving them a red carpet but are trying to make them find it. Unfortunately, QBs are smart these days and are finding it in less than 3 seconds.

Exactly.
Oct 4, 2015 at 12:37 AM
  • thl408
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 33,058
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Originally posted by defenderDX:
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
From what I am gathering here, though the players have played far from perfect, it seems like the poor play is more a result of the position the players have been put in rather than the poor efforts of the players themselves. Is that correct?

no.

absolutely 0 existence of pattern-matching despite every starting DB/LB being exposed to it under Fangio.

Wouldn't that still be a coaching/play call issue?
Defensively, I think the scheme overhaul plays a large part in their poor play. The defense is more of a scheme/coaching related issue. On offense, the OL is getting beat physically, losing 1v1 battles left and right - in the run game as well. Kap put the team down in a hurry vs ARI. I see offense as more of the players failing to deliver on their assignment. It's never black and white, players vs coaches and who gets more blame, but that's the way it seems after blowouts to PIT and ARI. imo
Search
YouTube
Flipboard
Threads
×
Share 49ersWebzone