About our defense ...
by Ronaldinho on May 4, 2009 11:37 PM PDT
61 comments
I just read a comment in another post which ended:
"No pass rusher. . . we’re dead in 2009."
I was thrown by the pessimism. I started to respond in that thread, and decided I wanted to go into a little more depth.
We had 30 sacks last year, tied for 16th in the league. That's not "no pass rush." That's the definition of a league-average pass-rush. But did you know if we got 5 more sacks last year, we would have been a top-10 team in sacks?
All this talk about how terrible our pass-rush is, well, it's just not accurate. I know, I know sacks aren't a perfect measure of a pass-rush. But the mind-set summarized by the above quote, the pathos over letting Everette Brown get away, appears to be not justified.
Our pass defense? 12th in the league in YPA. Again - not spectacular ... but better than average. Our rush defense was 8th in the league (for all the talk of our defensive line being a disaster, it doesn't look like that from the stats).
Our "horrible" third down defense? We allowed the first down 38% of the time. 12th in the league.
These aren't spectacular numbers, but they pretty consistently one thing: league average, or maybe a little bit better.
There's one area were our defense was below average (and, in turns out, below average by a lot): turnovers. We only managed 12 picks, and we only forced 12 fumbles. Those numbers put us solidly in the bottom of the league.
Remember, with all this talk, that we're really talking about a league-average, or slightly better, defense ... with the caveat that we're really not a big-play defense. (This harkens back to my draft comments, too: adding league-average players isn't going to help us much, if at all. We need big-play guys if we want to upgrade this defense.)
I think we can all remember some key drives last season when it seemed like our defense just couldn't get off the field. A quick look at the relevant statistics, however, shows that our defense wasn't really the problem.
If you want to know why we were 7-9 last year, the answer is really on the other side of the ball: While our QB's yards-per-attempt was decent, they led the league in sacks. For half the season we were starting J.T. O'Sullivan, who put the ball on the ground or threw a pick once for every ten times he dropped back to pass. We led the league in fumbles, and were tied for 26th in interceptions thrown.
Not counting on any improvement from running the 3-4 consistently (and we clearly looked better once we dropped the whole hybrid thing), and not counting of much larger production from Manny Lawson or Ahmed Brooks, not counting on Balmer turning into a quality player, or any improvement from the free safety position, what should we expect from our defense?
Something a little better than league-average.
Our offense, on the other hand, should improve just from cutting out the negative plays: we led the league in sacks allowed last year, and I've already mentioned our INT numbers. Both of those should improve with the removal of Martz's offense and JTO. (And it's worth repeating, JTO fumbled or threw an interception approximately once for every ten times he dropped back to pass). Rachal looked like an improvement once he got onto the field, and Marvel should be an upgrade over the different guys we ran out there last year (if he can stay healthy, but if he can't, we're no worse at that position).
I don't know what to expect when it comes into translating this into wins. A league-average team can get six wins or it can get 10 wins with a couple of good or bad bounces of the football. I do know that nobody should be writing this team off as non-competitive because of our defense. Such an opinion is simply not justified by our performance last year.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
1 recs |
61 comments
Email
Print
Comments
+1
I’m glad somebody else sees that “no pass rush” is in accurate. When we rank in the bottom 5 in sacks, you guys can proudly say we have “no pass rush”.
I think the pass rush can be improved, but so can everything else we do. It’s not our only bad spot, and we probably have more problems than that. I personally would rather see the Niners give up less sacks than get more of them on defense.
by Blank x2 on May 4, 2009 11:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Totally Agree
I think that too many people are quick to overlook some of the facts regarding our defense. The defense is still fairly young and should continue to improve under a steady 3-4 scheme. Lawson is the first to be thrown under the bus because of his numbers, what many don’t see is that he is very good in coverage and still had not recovered fully from his injury last year (we didn’t draft a pass rushing OLB, which means the coaching staff sees something in Manny we obviously haven’t). I believe the chemistry is there for them to take the next step without having to overpay for a Suggs or Peppers. Give it some time guys, I would also like them to be an elite defense but do not want to see them sacrifice continued progress as a unit for short-term guys that will put up big numbers while breaking the bank.
by Frank Cuatro Ocho on May 5, 2009 2:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"one area were our defense was below average : turnovers"
I think we need to upgrade BOTH of our safety spots. When I suggested on another thread that the team would be in better shape if M. Lewis’ job was a little less safe, I mostly heard crickets chirping. But check it out: while Roman had 0 interceptions and 0 ffs in the last 2 years, Lewis has only 4 (2 ints and 2 ff’s) in 32 games with the Niners. For comparison’s sake, the Rams’ Otogwe had 11 (5 int’s and 6 ff’s) last season alone.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, Lewis’ run-support is excellent, but Stephen Jackson is the only back in the NFC West that would keep me up at night—and he basically knows that Patrick Willis owns him, so he doesn’t actually end up making me particularly worried.
SO why not get some ballhawks back there?
If Goldson can stay healthy and Smith can take over Lewis’ SS spot (and Shaun Hill can manage the game like he did last year), methinks our turnover differential will look a lot more healthy this year.
This isn’t to say that pass rush isn’t important; heaven knows that a dynamite pass-rusher can lead to sack-fumbles and pressure-picks. Still, pass rush isn’t the be-all end-all of defense.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 5, 2009 8:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lewis
Lewis would do better he had a FS. Mark Roman was horrible in coverage. That left whoever he was covering open. So, the opposing QB would throw it to an open guy rather than taking a risk and throwing it towards the SS. I like Michael Lewis a lot so I hope we get to see some more action from him with Goldson or whoever is going to play FS
In Shaun Hill will trust
by iaalexeeff on May 5, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Troy P's FS isn't good either
M. S. #50
by rlott#42 on May 5, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No pass rush and we're dead in 2009
Really nice job of stats, Ronald, seriously. Very good work. However, against good offenses all those stats change for the worse very dramatically.
We held the Rams to 16 points twice (once with Nolan, once with Sing), we held the Lions to 13, and the Bills to 3.
But what about decent offenses? And a few indecent offenses?
We gave up:
33 and 34 to Seatle in our two games with them.
31 to the Saints
30 to NE w/o Brady
40 to the Eagles
29 to the Giants
29 and 23 to the Cards (the 23 came in Game 1 of the season)
and 35 to Dallas under Sing.
THOSE are the games you need to look at. What went wrong? And when I look at THOSE games we gave up 1st downs constant ly on 3rd downs and had NO pass rush.
Complain about Martz and JT all you want — I would never argue with you — but when your D is allowing 30-40 points again the offense gets desparate and tries more passing plays, so guess what happens? Especially against teams that DO have a good D.
That’s why I see 5 games on the 2009 schedule we could probably win. Look at the 2009 schedule yourself? We can beat the Lions and Rams again — who else do you see us beating without a great defense allowing our offense to hang in there?
I am writing on this site to wake people up. I love the Niners, and have been a big fan since the late seventies. But I remember more than Montana and Rice and Criag and Talyor and Steve Young. I remember WHY Montana had so many Super Bowl rings and Younf just one. NOT Montana come backs, or grit. It was the D. It was Fred Dean and Charles Haley and Ronnie lot that scared the heck out of the opposing offenses. We were mean, crazy, reckless, and feared.
THAT’s what I am getting at. Who fears our D? No one. We’re avearge, with a few sacks here and there — average — when statistically looking at all the games. Very few turnovers — WHY — because Lewis can’t catch? No. It’s because there’s not enough constant pressure to get the QB out of sync, out of rhythm.
We need one greaqt pass rusher (I hope for our sakes Everette Brown was not that guy). Trade for Peppers if we can give away less than a 1. Or get Suggs. We need something to rock the boat or what you’ll get is an average team with an inspirational coach. But where’s the inspirational PLAYER? The Ronnie Lott? The Charles Haley? Look what Haley did for Dallas after Seifert ditched him? It MADE Dallas. Aikman and Smith were always great, but until Haely showed up Dallas couldn’t get over the top.
So that’s why I say the pass rush is STILL key. No one is going to fear Manny Lawson. He’s a really good player, but we need an animal. This is FOOTBALL, we need a football player with a crazy strek to upset the offense play after play. Then maybe we can win more than 5 or 6 games. Maybe 12. It’ll make that kind of difference. Maybe a championship. With the D leading the way — like the Giants did. Pittsburg wasn’t bad either. Ravens. Etc. Without a top D we aren’t going anywhere.
by Since79 on May 5, 2009 9:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All numbers . . . no understanding
Unless your team has the top defense in league expect the defense to get lit up playing the best offenses. Those numbers aren’t an indictment, it’s a reality.
Ever watched the Ravens or Steelers play the Colts? 5 minutes into the broadcast they always show the keys to the game in a giant graphic . . . every time the top key is for the Ravens/Steelers is for the offense to produce. Their offense is going to have score points for them to win. More importantly good offense keeps the Colts offense off field which ironically is the best defense.
The 49ers offense in those games was abysmal. It was turnovers and lack 1st down production that produced those high scoring totals. The defense got stops, however the team is going to give up 24+ points if the opposing team is given 12-14 possessions compared to a more manageable 8-10.
by bignerd on May 5, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I broke down your analysis of our schedule in that other thread ...
… but let’s look more specifically at some of these numbers.
First of all, a general point: yes, this is what league-average means. Some games you do poorly. But notice how almost all of those games occurred before the bye-week. In fact, only one (The Dallas loss) occurred after Singletary had been able to shelve the hybrid and get the players up to speed on the new schemes.
But it makes no sense to cherry-pick our bad games as if they represent our “real” defense and ignore our good ones. If I picked our
But let’s look at those games a little more closely:
“3 and 34 to Seatle in our two games with them.”
Low points in the season, quite frankly. Not encouraging.
“31 to the Saints”
3 turnovers might have had something to do with it.
“30 to NE w/o Brady”
Saying “without Brady” is meaningless, since, in case you didn’t notice, Cassel was pretty good last year. (In the other thread you alluded to the fact that you think Cutler will shred us, even on a bad offensive team, but Denver wanted to throw Cutler over for Cassel).
This was a game where JTO threw 3 picks in 30 attempts. You don’t think that hurts the final scoreline?
“40 to the Eagles”
JTO two picks and a fumble. There’s a reason why I look at the “per yard” stats. Game totals don’t give you any context. They scored 40 points on us, sure, but we kept giving them the ball. 40 points can represent an offensive failure more than a defensive one, and, not for the last time, that’s one of the major factors here – although yeah, they just beat us.
29 to the Giants
JTO two picks and a fumble lost (to say nothing of three other fumbles). They averaged 5.2YPA against us passing and 3.5 rushing – they scored a lot because we couldn’t hold onto the football.
29 and 23 to the Cards (the 23 came in Game 1 of the season)
The second game we were in a position to win against a team which had an – at times – dominant passing attack. The second game featured … stop me in this sounds familiar … two picks and a fumble from Hill this time. When you give the other team extra shots at the goal, often with good field position, you have to expect to give up extra points.
“and 35 to Dallas under Sing.”
Another great example of offensive failure making the defense look bad. In the second quarter, we went three-and-out with a safety, 3-and-out, 3-and-out, and then fumbled on the first play of our next drive, giving them the ball at our 19 yard line. At that point, the game was basically over, for reasons that had almost nothing to do with our defense.
“THAT’s what I am getting at. Who fears our D? No one. We’re avearge, with a few sacks here and there — average — when statistically looking at all the games. Very few turnovers — WHY — because Lewis can’t catch? No. It’s because there’s not enough constant pressure to get the QB out of sync, out of rhythm.”
That’s a somewhat facile observation, since many teams with far fewer sacks than we had got more interceptions. There’s no doubt that a great pass rush can help generate turnovers, but it appears our problems went deeper than that last year.
“But where’s the inspirational PLAYER? The Ronnie Lott? The Charles Haley? Look what Haley did for Dallas after Seifert ditched him? It MADE Dallas.”
I actually don’t disagree with you at all that adding a player like that could make a huge impact on our defense. Of course, players like Charles Haley are rare. They’re hard to find in the draft (they go fast!).
But it’s also worth remembering that this isn’t the pre-salary-cap era. Back then, a team could go out and just buy a player to fill a need, and we can’t do that any more. The biggest difference that makes is that you can’t afford to make mistakes: If you’re going to pay somebody the kind of money Peppers is demanding, you better be sure he’s still got it in the tank.
You will never hear me arguing against the value of adding dominant players, and if your goal is to win a championship on defense, you need a couple of ‘em. What I object to is the “no pass rush, no chance” argument when it applies to these 49ers. We don’t have no pass rush. We have an average one. We’re not a championship-level team, and to get there we probably do have to improve our defense.
But there’s a world of difference between not being a championship level team and saying “no chance” at beating average or slightly-above average teams.
by Ronaldinho on May 5, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I pretty much
side with Ronaldinho here, over Since79. Obviously, having a Charles Haley/Lawrence Taylor type of player on defense is great. Unfortunately, they’re about as common as franchise QB’s. You do the best with what you have and hope/try to get a dominant pass rusher.
No doubt that a great pass helps the overall defense, but like you say, to claim that there’s no pass rush is ignorant. It’s, like you said average, and hopefully will get better this year.
BTW: Regarding the Dallas game. Two times in the first quarter, the offense had the ball in the Dallas Red Zone and only came away with six points. On the road against a good team , you need to get a TD or two in that situation. That hurt.
by GeoMak on May 5, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am happy
that you disagree with me — and I hope you are RIGHT! I don’t have money on my predcitions. I would love nothing more than to have egg all over my face — and arms and legs — after a playoff season.
My simple point is that until we get an impact pass rusher we will not win a championship. And after all, that is the point of playing in the NFL.
I am saying optimistically that we’re close! But without a pass rush monster we won’t make the grade. It’s not an Oline guy that’s going to make the difference, or a CB, or a QB! It’s a pass rusher and until we find him we’re not going to be any better than an average team — i.e. a door mat for good teams with no shot at the big show.
by Since79 on May 5, 2009 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For what it's worth
I agree with your basic premise (about the pass rush/Championships). I come from the Buddy Ryan school of pressure. It all starts up front.
That said, building a team is a process and I disagree with the premise that the pass rush is now terrible (as pointed out by Ronaldinho). It’s pretty much average and will only get better under MS.
And overpaying for a vet (like Haynseworth and Peppers) isn’t the long-term answer, IMO.
Again, I agree with your premise. I just disagree with some of your conclusions.
by GeoMak on May 5, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
soo...
who’s the pass rush monster you have in mind? It really seems like you’ve got someone in mind. Peppers? Too much $$ to justify the gamble. Suggs? Not much better than Haralson (maybe—I’m more open to him). Everette Brown? I’m guessing it’ll be easier to pick up a pass rush monster with fewer question marks than Brown had with our No. 1 next year.
Teams are built and it sometimes takes years—either to find that guy or for that guy to figure it out. Heck, how many times was James Harrison cut before he became James Harrison Super Bowl MVP? How do you know that that guy isn’t Manny Lawson or Parys Haralson with increased playing time/health (respectively) and with a higher level of familiarity with the scheme (due to less ridiculous ‘hybrid’ switching)?
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 5, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your premise
about guys on your own team like Harrison, and hopefully Lawson/Haralson.
The 85 Bears featured a 1st round, HOF stud (Dan Hampton), a former 3rd round pick (Steve McMichael) who was cut by New England, and Richard Dent, an eighth round pick.
When Dent was drafted, he weighed just 225 pounds, due in large part to a problem with his teeth. The Bears got his teeth fixed, bulked him up to 265 lbs., and then coached him up into the Pro-Bowl and probably into the HOF.
by GeoMak on May 5, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to win now instead of delaying and praying about 2011. . . .
With Peppers we start to win now. With a 2010 draft pick you’re going to have to have a rookie develop. By then it’s 2011 and who knows what’s going to happen by then?
In my view, the teams that are great for years at a time always have a monster D. That starts with a pass rushing game plan and a monster or two doing the rushing. Justin Smith is a monster! We have one! But he will be taken care of in an offensive scheme if Pays and Manny don’t do something very special with their development AND stay healthy — which NEITHER of them have been able to do. Same thing with Goldson at safety. There are players that seem to know how to avoid injury, and some players who always seem to get injured. We have to take that into consideration.
Peppers is a stud. Healthy. 29 years old. He would change everything.
by Since79 on May 5, 2009 12:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And he's going
to cost a ton in salary and compensation. And there’s no guarantee how well he will play on a new team in a new system.
Those are the potential drawbacks to counter your point. I’m not saying he wouldn’t be worth it. I’m just saying it’s not that simple.
by GeoMak on May 5, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you think we should give up for Peppers? I would be ok with giving up a 2nd and a 3rd. I’m afraid that Carolina would want more but I personally am rather enticed by having two first round draft picks next year.
I would love to have him on our team and I think he can be a beast coming off the edge but I don’t want to give up a ton of high picks when we would need to sign him to a massive contract too.
by 3eyes on May 5, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing
to me. Personally, I don’t know how his salary would fit in with the Niners cap. Beyond that, if it was a second or third that would be one thing.
A first and more would be something else.
Beyond that, even though he’s a great player, I have some reservations about guys like him and Haynesworth. I just think that after they got a huge contract and are on a new team, I personally think that they won’t be worth everything it cost their new teams to get them.
by GeoMak on May 5, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spending all your cap money, picks and resources on a few veterans who might push your team to a playoff level is a complete Jets move. Sorry, I’d rather be in SB contention in 2011 than shoot the wad for a measly wildcard appearance in 2009 or 2010.
by bignerd on May 5, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Franchise
A franchise isn’t built by just trading for players. That may get a one or two final pieces but not the whole puzzle. ESPN did this thing where they talked about the best drafts for each team. The steelers had like 4 HOF drafted in one draft (1974). Trading isn’t always the best way to build a franchise. Who knows, we may not even need a Julius Peppers type player because someone might emerge. All we can really do is wait.
In Shaun Hill will trust
by iaalexeeff on May 5, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm DEFINITELY not a fan of waiting until 2011 just to see if something good happens.
Good teams make great things happen NOW. No great team is willing to wait 2 or 3 years and hope that works. That’s for also rans and small city teams happy just to fill seats. I want to see the Niners get back to the level of the dominant teams over the last 20 years — Steelers, Dallas, I’d personally put NE in there too. We won’t get anywhere waiting around for a dream to occur in 2011. That’s just crazy. And for a fan to think that way is NOT comnforting.
by Since79 on May 5, 2009 5:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There's more than one way to build a championship
It recent years, the Patriots (multiple times) and the Colts (once) have won championships without a dominant pass-rusher in the Charles Haley mold.
Certainly in this era, a team has to decide where it wants to spend its money. The early-90s Niners and Cowboys were the last of an era: truly dominant on both sides of the ball. With the salary cap, teams have to pick and choose. You don’t get to keep receivers who could be #1 for somebody else as your fourth and fifth receiver. You don’t get both the best QB in the league and the best pash-rusher.
Similarly, in the salary-cap era, sometimes the best move you can make is no move. Rather than overpay for a guy who’s not really that good, and ends up hamstringing your flexibility for years to come, you need to pick your spots. We saw this with the Warriors this last off-season: desperate to show they were serious about winning, then went out and grabbed the best player they could get: Maggette. They overpaid him. Then to show they were serious, they overpaid Stephen Jackson. And then, when Al Harrington pouted … they traded him for a guy who makes the team worse.
Since those moves didn’t turn the Warriors into championship contenders, they probably would have been better-off not making them. Of course, the fans would have grumbled.
As a team improves, it gets harder and harder to make marginal further improvement. Everette Brown probably would have come in and been an instant starter three years ago for the Niners. This year? I’m not sure he would have gotten on the field much, barring injury. Therefore the team has to be smarter, and forgo some of the more obvious moves, to step up.
I’m also not okay with the team standing pat. Like you, I agree we need impact players, stars. And that’s why I liked the trade: the trade was an attempt to put us in position to get impact players.
by Ronaldinho on May 5, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dwight freeney and peyton manning
arguably the best pass rusher and best qb both on the colts
by 3eyes on May 5, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Equals one Superbowl
Gimme a great D and a QB that makes plays and doesn’t blow you away with stats………………………………….Like the Steelers
M. S. #50
by rlott#42 on May 5, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're kind of funny
You don’t just ‘snap your fingers’ and make it happen. Usually it takes a few years, at least, for a new regime to get it’s players in place and weed out the ones that don’t fit.
Nobody’s talking ‘waiting’ for things to happen. It’s called ‘making things happen.’ Unfortunately, it usually takes a few drafts and a few years.
by GeoMak on May 5, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
History lesson
The whole reason why this puke-tastic Nolan-era rebuilding effort was necessary was because our salary cap was a-WAY overloaded. We had to let Julian Peterson (a pass rush monster, no?) walk because we couldn’t pay him. And so the solution is to run around in circles throwing money at the problem…for what was that again? Oh yeah, so that we can go through another salary cap purge and puke-tastic rebuilding effort. I’m not saying we shouldn’t spend money; I’m saying we should spend money judiciously and with an eye to long-term success. I’m a big fan of the fact that we’ve got some of the promising younger players (O-Line, Willis, K/P, Haralson, etc.) locked up longer term. If ManLaw blows up and our salary cap is tied up with money that’s being paid out for (for example) Peppers’ sack-cess with the Panthers won’t we be in the same spot again—having to let a young promising pass rusher walk because we can’t pay him?
Also, who said anything about waiting to 2011? Demarcus Ware didn’t take too long to make the transition, nor did Merriman.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 5, 2009 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
think of how much better our defense would be
if we had a legit nose tackle
If you had a lineup of 9 Jack Custs who hit(Cust career average) .239 AVG, .382 OBP, and .475 SLG, then your team would score 6.12 runs per game-totalling to 991runs a season.The 08 rangers lead the majors in runs score with 901.
by 9Custs on May 5, 2009 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's a legit nose tackle without the right scheme
Our defense in comparison to the better 3-4 D’s in the league (Steelers n Ravens) Is pitiful. We’re too conservative with blitzing and we don’t even agressively disguise blitzes. Changing that alone will get more turnovers and more oppurtunities for sacks and the O to have good field position
M. S. #50
by rlott#42 on May 5, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our safety concerns might be an issue with blitzing ...
FS is an area of weakness on this team, which may mean it makes more sense to play conservative defense.
Big blitzes are very risky plays. Quite frankly, rushing 5 or 6 produces more big plays… for both teams, and the average (Greg Easterbrook has done this analysis) is actually a net gain for the offense.
by Ronaldinho on May 6, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how much are they going to pay to keep those guys?
You want to maybe put the money we don’t spend from the cap in the stock market for a few years? Wanna talk about P/E ratios?
Our salary cap got messed up because of mismanagement of the cap. Not because they piad one super stud too much. They paid too many players too much — Peterson was the tip of the ice berg.
We didn’t draft a potential Merriman or Ware this year, or last year. That was the decision by the GM. Okay, fine, so then you’re left with only one option: BUY ONE.
You can structure it to be cap friendly. But you better believe if the Patriots needed a pass rusher they’d figure out to buy one RIGHT NOW. You guys need to start thinking more like a fan than a father. This isn’t our son’s life savings we’re talking about. This is our TEAM. And it needs someone great on D to focus the talent already there.
We have some older players we;re going to have to replace as it is. And I woudn’t count on Gore being as good as he’s been in 2011! So then we’re going to be talking about needing a monster running back too. Or should we wait until 2014 for that and just use Robinson until then?
Come on guys, quit thinking like a bunch of accountants. You don’t get great thinking like that.
by Since79 on May 5, 2009 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, so other positions are important now. Like ones on offense. Good. Glad to hear you liked the draft.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 5, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point...
I was making was that good teams don’t go crazy if they’ve got a hole or two.
Since you brought up the Patriots, I’ll use them as an example. In 2006, Tom Brady was at the height of his powers. The Patriots were coming off a 10-6 season in which they lost out in the divisional round of the playoffs scoring a meager 7 points against an excellent pass-defending team (Denver). Deion Branch, 2004 SB MVP and their leading receiver in the 2005 season held out in training camp. You would’ve expected them to pay him because their cupboard was pretty well bare after him. They didn’t. In fact, they traded him away to the Seahawks for a draft pick. They had money to spend, so what did they do? BUY A RECEIVER? No. They ‘suffered through’ a 12-4 regular season and fielded a receiving corp that featured Reche Caldwell, Troy Brown, Doug Gabriel and Jabar Gaffney. Remember, they did this when Brady was at the height of his powers.
The following season, they picked up a couple of very fine receivers who they were able to get for a song: Randy Moss for a 4th rounder and Wes Welker for a 2nd and a 7th (if I recall correctly). What happened? They went 16-0 and were 2 minutes away from a perfect season.
Patience pays.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 5, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the answer
Put Singletary in there with P-Willis. Boom! The D is fixed.
In Shaun Hill will trust
by iaalexeeff on May 5, 2009 8:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Turnovers
On offense cause poor field position for the D and the time on the field adds to fatigue and in game morale. Hold on to your hats we’re riding into the PLAYOFFS!!
M. S. #50
by rlott#42 on May 5, 2009 10:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Singletary Answer
+1 there. The dude was a destroyer. Wouldn’t he LOVE to have a big time pass rusher now!!!
Mr. Riott, where did the 42 come from? Wasn’t that ronnie Lott’s number? Don’t you want someone to cause havoc on the D like he did? Come on, live up to your name, and get real. We’re not going to the playoffs unless we get a big time pass rusher before the season starts. LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE. Even Fooch didn’t see a way we could be better than 8-8 or 9-7 with the present team and the schedule we have.
By the way, grandpa temp, NE paid up for Moss in terms of $$$, they just stole him from a senile egomaniac who thought that Moss’ dropping balls had to do with diminisihing skills vs diminishing interest in his team.
But NE paid Moss BIG BUCKS while everyone else said his career was winding down. And going after him and Corey Dillon is not what I would call a display of patience!!!!
It’s what I would call pulling a Bill Walsh. Buy now, worry later. That is what I am advocating. NOT patience, but guts and good horse trading.
If you think we have a lousy team that needs way more than just the help of one big stud on D, then I understand your logic — we’re not ready to take that gamble. Because according to you, we suck and one stud won’t make any difference.
If on the other hand you are syaing we have a team that could go 8-8 or 9-7, then I’m with you, and I’m saying with one big stud pass rusher in the mix we could turn that into a playoff record and a run at the NFC championship.
I am an optimist. Yes, I am! I think the Niners draft SUCKED, but only because they didn’t address their most glaring weakness. And obviously they got it in their heads that Everette Brown wasn’t that stud guy — and Carolina got it in their heads he WAS! In fact, they think he could be someone to replace Peppers! (Not a good sign but I hope we were right. and not them.)
Meanwhile, without drafting Brown in round 2 it left an obvious void in what most Niner fans felt was/is their most glaring weakness (Safety, O-line, NT being the others. Some say QB, I’m not one.)
I am just saying this: What if Reggie or J Willaims or Goldson are the answer at safety, and Marvel stays healty? I’m just SAYIN’.
And what if Balmer improves and Franklin plays steady at the nose position?
Then a monster pass rusher is the only really big hole to fill !!!!
BTW: I love Manny Lawson in coverage, when he’s healthy. And Pays is becoming very ok, when he’s healthy. . . . But if we had one monster guy who could come in 2nd and long, and 3rd downs, and when we have a 10 point lead, etc., and just create chaos on every play, well then we’d have a D that other teams might fear. I mean, nobody wants to get hurt, and this guy isn’t just someone who gets sacks, he’s crazy, like Suggs or Peppers. I mean the guy could hurt somebody on any given play.
That’s all I’m sayin. If I don’t make sense to ya bro, then hey, sorry. . . . And I don’t care if everyone wants to rag on me. It’s all good fun.
But it won’t change the truth. And the truth needs to be told. . . .
by Since79 on May 6, 2009 12:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Your memory is faulty ...
… about Moss. The issue wasn’t whether he was still talented, or whether he was too old (He hadn’t even hit his tenth season). IT’s if he was a clubhouse cancer.
By the way, Since79, learn to use the reply button. It actually makes it easier to tell who you’re responding too.
by Ronaldinho on May 6, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your going overboard
You seem willing to accept that Goldson could prove to be the answer at safety but you won’t even consider that Haralson could be the guy to improve the pass rush? Parys was tied for 17th in the NFL in sacks last year as a part time player, if he goes from 8 sacks to 12 with a full time role that would put him in the top 10.
I am still interested in Peppers because I think he is a great player and could help the team, but the original poster is absolutely correct in saying that the Niner’s defense wasn’t that bad last year. This team could make the play-offs with the players we have right now on D, there is no need to panic just yet.
by DiegoAsFan on May 6, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here there Ronald McDonald, watch out... !
Looks like you have some traitors on this post.
See the Lights Out post.
Your little team is jumping ship . . . .but at least they are making sense now.
by Since79 on May 6, 2009 12:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, how old are you?
Come on, there’s room for debate on this board, and that’s all fine and good. But do you really feel the need to resort to name calling? If you’ve been a fan since 1979, then you’re at least 30 years too old to be a name caller. Leave that kind of weak crap on the elementary school playground.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on May 6, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore ...
… do you really think nobody’s called me Ronald McDonald before?
Do you really think it bugs me at all? When you call me that in an obvious attempt to belittle me, do you think it makes me look small … or do you think it makes you look small?
by Ronaldinho on May 6, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everette Brown
I think the Niners passed on him because he is a one-dimensional player who would have cost too much to just be a 3rd down specialist. I think that they will give Manny one more season to prove himself (now that he’s healthy) and if not they will use one of their 1st round picks next year to draft a replacement who will not only be a good pass rusher but also be able to play in pass coverage. The Panthers play a 4-3 defense and saw that E. Brown fits their system because of his particular skill set.
by Frank Cuatro Ocho on May 6, 2009 12:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
According to the draft Gods
False Gods, at best, however, almost all the pre-draft opinions I saw had Brown in a 3-4.
by Since79 on May 6, 2009 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Moss
No, dude, he was dropping passes at the end of the season and not getting open. People were saying it was over. NE didn’t buy it. They bought him.
by Since79 on May 6, 2009 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Who...
… in the world are you replying to? How about using the +reply button at the bottom of the comment you are actually replying to to make things seem a little more coherent. This is not the first time peopel have asked you to try to do this.
As for Moss, it was clear to the world he was a foot dragger just because his team was losing. New England took him because they knew they would be able to eliminate the primary reason why he was choosing to suck: he wanted a winning team.
by sfgfan on May 6, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's responding to me and to Ronaldinho re: Moss.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moss was a very low-risk pickup.
First, remember that NE had already addressed their WR position by adding Welker, almost two months earlier.
Second, remember that NE made a habit of trading back, or trading into the future to add picks, so that they had lots of mid-round picks. A 4th rounder was almost nothing.
Third, you’re just wrong about what people thought about Moss. Here is Bill Simmons three days after the trade:
Every Patriots fan I know was legitimately speechless after the trade. We’d heard the rumors for weeks but never believed this thing would, you know, happen.
Maybe Moss isn’t a brand-new Enzo, but he’s definitely a Ferrari — one of those with about 75,000 miles on it that you’d buy from a rapper who’s going bankrupt. You’re not exactly sure what condition it’s in. It might be more trouble than it’s worth. You have to keep it covered almost all the time. The parts are expensive. At the same time, it’s a Ferrari and you’re getting it at a discount, right? If you have the money and you always wanted a car like that, you have to make the deal.ANd here’s a key paragraph:
The case against a Moss trade: He’s a potential cancer on a team that’s always thrived on chemistry and character. Everyone agrees that he lost a step over the past two seasons, although he may have just lost the will to live with Kerry Collins, Art Shell, Aaron Brooks and Norv Turner in his life.
In other words – maybe he’s lost a step, or maybe it’s just that he’s being a headcase on a bad team. Not “it’s over” but “he’s lost a step.”Dan Shaugnessy wrote a long article about why this trade was a bad idea for the Patriots (read it here: “http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/04/30/this_is_a_huge_change_from_their_usual_route/?page=full”) and he goes on and on about character stuff, but never once so much as implies that Moss can’t still bring it. In fact, he even says:
There’ll be no more worries about “stretching the field.” No more dependence on the guy (Reche Caldwell) with the Calvin Schiraldi Eyes. Moss has 101 touchdown receptions in his nine seasons. He may have lost a step, but he’s way better than anyone the Patriots have and he gives Brady a weapon he’s never had. It’s likely to bring out the best in Ben Watson, too.And this a guy who was against the trade.
What about the local press in the bay area?
Here’s a quote from the SF Chronicle:
So ended a two-year relationship that never worked for either side. Moss struggled with injuries in 2005 and let attitude problems shipwreck last season. This is the player who said he was dropping balls because he was in a “bad mood.”and here’s another article about the trade. No reference to the slightest implication that Moss is over.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/30/SPGOCPI1A51.DTL&hw=moss%20raiders&sn=019&sc=708
In other words, your claims that people thought Moss was finished are without merit. You can repeat it all you like, but if you want anybody to take you seriously, maybe you ought to back it up with some, y’know, evidence?
ps Learn to use the reply button.
by Ronaldinho on May 6, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
phooey ... one too many quote makers. My bad. :)
by Ronaldinho on May 6, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can call them Calvin Schiraldi eyes—I call them “cocaine eyes.”
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 6, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"they bought him"
For next to no money. That’s the key point. And to do so, they were willing to wait a full year with money in the bank and with their quarterback aging before their eyes.
I’m not a huge fan of the #2 and #4 for #1 trade, but now that we have it, I think the team would be ill served by throwing that trading chip away with who knows what kind of return. In this economy, people are going to want to shed salary. Look at Sam Presti, the GM of the OK City Thunder. He has that team poised to compete for a long time because he’s been stockpiling picks and rebuilding the team. We’re not quite in the same spot, because for us, what looks like waiting is actually allowing our young players to develop and giving them a chance to show their worth (or lack thereof). Heaven knows that if Haralson and Lawson turn into what they look like they can we’ll find a spot to fill with 2 #1’s in next year’s draft.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 6, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
edit
“They bought him” for next to no resources. Obviously they spent money—though they did renegotiate his contract before officially bringing him in. But they didn’t hamstring themselves cap-wise or draft-pick wise, and I think that bringing in Peppers would potentially do both of those things.
In Singletary we trust.
by grantmp on May 6, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, you have GOT to learn to use the reply button! Look under any post, you’ll see the word ‘reply’ right behind a + sign in a box. Click it to reply to people. It’s crazy-making trying to follow who you’re talking to!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on May 6, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
