New-look 49ers' defense aims to cause confusion

[Elmgrovegnome]

Wow! Tomsula is a dead ringer for Ron Jeremy. LOL

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The 49ers defense will certainly cause confusion because the opposing teams will be thinking, "Are they really NFL Players?" "Do their coaches really think they can stop us with that bunch?"

All kidding aside I think Mangini is a good coach. Sometimes you need to change things up. I don't know the aptitude of the guys he has on the defense but if they aren't dumbies then switching to a more complex scheme may be the only hope they have, because right now I don't think they have the players to pull off a straight up, in your face plan. I am sure Mangenious realizes this.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 having trouble with math:
These are your words:

"Our defense gave up an average of 17 points per game over the second half of the season."
16/2 = 8. I'd call that your words.

"So I'm not sure who "they" are but I don't agree with their outlook."
"They" are the people who rank teams in various categories ESPN et alia.

"6 games giving up less than 20 points out of 8 games isn't my definition of inconsistent."
And here's where those different definitions rear their ugly heads. Plus, who says 20 points is the dividing line for good or bad Ds? I mean besides you. Isn't that just another arbitrary figure you decided on? I could pick 10 points and say we had a crappy D the last half of the season.

Of course we're just arguing semantics here so you can make up a special football only definition of the word inconsistent but I'll stick with the dictionary version.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistent
inconsistent

adjective in·con·sis·tent \-tənt\
: not always acting or behaving in the same way

: not continuing to happen or develop in the same way

: having parts that disagree with each other : not in agreement with something

Yes, I know you're disagreeing with the context with which I used that word rather than the actual definition. You make some good points and I understand your take on how our D performed after a rough start ( I think we can both agree on that time frame). We can argue how many points given up is a measure of a good D or what metric we'll use but keep in mind that I said this:

" I'm also using what I see in the games and I saw some very good games and some bad games and some in between games."

That's a completely subjective analysis so it's not surprising that you saw something different.

There is an area where we really disagree and it goes to the core of what I was saying. I completely, wholeheartedly, totally (plus some other synonyms) disagree with this:

"You don't ask a guy like Williams to run a simple scheme."

Especially when he didn't have time to effectively install his D. I think the results on the field, 1 sack in the first 5 games for a team with our D-line, getting blown out in games early in the season and other obvious metrics leads me to believe that I'm on the right track here. Not to mention the fact that saying you can't ask Williams to modify his D to fit the players/circumstances is a really damning statement about his abilities as a DC.

That inability to run a simple scheme ruined any chance we had of having a good season IMO.

 

[Alan]

Shame on all you guys who recognized Ron Jeremy! I recognized him immediately too.

 

[DaveFan'51]

I fear the 49ers are going to ..

 

[jrry32]

"6 games giving up less than 20 points out of 8 games isn't my definition of inconsistent."
And here's where those different definitions rear their ugly heads. Plus, who says 20 points is the dividing line for good or bad Ds? I mean besides you. Isn't that just another arbitrary figure you decided on? I could pick 10 points and say we had a crappy D the last half of the season.

20 points is a bit arbitrary but it's also a round number and the past couple years, giving up an average of 20 PPG put you right around the 10th spot.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-offensive-points-per-game

Of course we're just arguing semantics here so you can make up a special football only definition of the word inconsistent but I'll stick with the dictionary version.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconsistent
inconsistent

adjective in·con·sis·tent \-tənt\
: not always acting or behaving in the same way

: not continuing to happen or develop in the same way

: having parts that disagree with each other : not in agreement with something

Yes, I know you're disagreeing with the context with which I used that word rather than the actual definition. You make some good points and I understand your take on how our D performed after a rough start ( I think we can both agree on that time frame). We can argue how many points given up is a measure of a good D or what metric we'll use but keep in mind that I said this:

To be fair, if we're being strict with the definition, every team is inconsistent. Because there wasn't a single team in the NFL last year that put out their best effort week in and week out. We didn't have any team go 19-0. I'm just using the word in the way it's typically used when it relates to football discussions.

Especially when he didn't have time to effectively install his D. I think the results on the field, 1 sack in the first 5 games for a team with our D-line, getting blown out in games early in the season and other obvious metrics leads me to believe that I'm on the right track here. Not to mention the fact that saying you can't ask Williams to modify his D to fit the players/circumstances is a really damning statement about his abilities as a DC.

That inability to run a simple scheme ruined any chance we had of having a good season IMO.

Ya know, I think it's worth it. It's worth having a rough 5-7 games for the pay-off that comes down the road from getting the scheme down fully. We lost our starting QB in the pre-season. I don't see the complicated scheme being the main reason why our season went down the drain.

I think it is much more likely that Austin Davis and Shaun Hill doing their best Keith Null impression in the 4th Quarter in one score games that tanked any chance we had at a .500 or winning season.

The defense didn't exactly help early on but at the same time, who is to say that the defense would have been as fantastic as it was later in the year if we didn't utilize the full potential of the scheme? Would we have baffled Manning like we did?

Plus, even assuming he went simpler, we still could have had that breaking in period. You just never know.

 

[Mikey Ram]

The offense won't know what we can do with each snap ??? Might bring pressure or drop 8 into coverage ??? Very novel ideas, nobody else in the league can possibly do that.. ..I'm sure the Rams (and most other teams are in awe what they might do...What a joke of a comment...I'm not so sure that their defense will fall off the edge of the Earth, but that's a really stupid comment to make...

 

[Zaphod]

I for one (although I do think I speak for most Rams fans) hope they do cause confusion, in their own minds, as for who is covering who when they face us!

In fact, I want them to be riddled, bamboozled, perplexed and seriously despondent.

Seriously, this is just the media stating that they admit the 49ers are going to lose a step offensively, but hey, that defense might still be pretty good! Keep hope alive fans.

 

[Rmfnlt]

With all the changes that team has experienced over the off season, I'd think the last thing you want to do is complicate things.

Carry on, Mangenius!!

 

[Alan]

jrry32 back with this:
Ya know, I think it's worth it. It's worth having a rough 5-7 games for the pay-off that comes down the road from getting the scheme down fully. We lost our starting QB in the pre-season. I don't see the complicated scheme being the main reason why our season went down the drain.

I think it is much more likely that Austin Davis and Shaun Hill doing their best Keith Null impression in the 4th Quarter in one score games that tanked any chance we had at a .500 or winning season.

The defense didn't exactly help early on but at the same time, who is to say that the defense would have been as fantastic as it was later in the year if we didn't utilize the full potential of the scheme? Would we have baffled Manning like we did?

Plus, even assuming he went simpler, we still could have had that breaking in period. You just never know.

I'm not putting the blame for lout lost season solely on GW's shoulders and the play of our backup QBs certainly doomed any chance we had to recover from our crappy start but didn't their crappy play mainly occur after we had already screwed the pooch? Plus, when your D isn't playing well and your opponent usually has a big lead it usually forces your O to abandon the game plan your inexperienced backup QB practiced all week before the game. Few QBs, experienced or not, capable or not, have good days when the defense knows what's coming IMO. Having the other team play prevent D helps of course.

You're probably correct in your contention that our D will be better this year because of the decreased learning curve all but our new players will have to experience this year but the cost of a whole season is pretty high. I find it hard to believe that a slower and more gradual installation wouldn't have eventually brought us to the same place we are right now but without the horrendous D we put on the field early on.

But you're right that we'll never know which method would have been superior. Still, it's my opinion that his decision to throw our team into the deep end probably only works really well with an older more experienced D and is exactly the wrong thing to do with a team as young and inexperienced as we were. I prefer to get that swimming thing down before I venture into the deep end.