Posted By: Chance (04/10/2008 11:19:36 AM)
Comment: Matt if the niners lose their next 3 games do you think there is a possibility that nolan will be fired? And if so who gets the job?

Posted By: Razoreater (03/10/2008 9:07:55 PM)
Comment: This team is no where near ready to play with the "big boys". You can package and scheme all you want but if you don't draft the studs you'll be duds. We need players who are capable of doing it all at every position in a base 4-3. Condy Rice could draft better than McNolan has.

Posted By: ska (03/10/2008 5:49:24 PM)
Comment: Peter - I don't know. It was hard to argue that VD was a good pick when they took him. I don't know how much more evaluating you can do on a guy. He has all of the tools. And I may be wrong but Lawson was a late first rounder in that same year if I am not mistaken. It is strange and doesn't make sense what they say but if he is not good enough to be on the field then I guess that says it all. While there is no doubt this team is more talented than when they came I am starting to wonder if they are really as talented as we think. Belichek put it in perspective when he talked in MM's piece about all of the veterans on the defense. We want to say they are good but I am starting to think as a package they are just slightly above average. I remember Merton Hanks used to say it doesn't matter what defense we play. When everybody takes care of their assignments we win. We keep it simple and we are better than them. Thats the way it is when you are good enough.

Posted By: peter ruliffson (03/10/2008 2:33:47 PM)
Comment: Hey Matt Good to see Nolan isn't the only one hiding the truth about Lawson. Manusky was just as evasive. Bottom line, as Barrows pointed out today, is that this regime has at best 3 first round busts in 4 years. How do you keep a first rounder like lawson grounded and then make excuses like "big sub"? Lawson continues to get praised for his pass coverage skills yet is absent from the dime package-that is a blatant contradiction. If he can't rush the passer or cover a TE like Carlsen then why have him play at all? More of the same from Hoener on VD. The focus has been soley on Alex Smith and the poor talent evaluation that took place, yet they needed a QB no matter what. There are no such excuses for the misfires of Manny and Vernon...so much for "best player available"

Posted By: oneniner (03/10/2008 2:33:01 PM)
Comment: imagine putting JTO in A.Smith shoes the last 4 yrs with the niners. No MARTZ. Same coaches, Same issues.. Just think about it, even with his 8 yrs experience in the league.......I love the offense but my QB is lacking the "IT" you want in your franchise QB.........I really hope we win on sunday, Nolan always crumble under pressure from the fans.... The niners defense i believe are blitzing all game. TBC is having a big game!

Posted By: oldman9er (03/10/2008 2:30:24 PM)
Comment: It was idiotic for the 9ers to run the "big Sub" when it was clear that Deuce McAllister was on the field. They should know that this scheme won't stop his run game. As someone said, it should not be used as a base D unless perhaps obvious passing situations. Our staff doesn't seem capable or willing to make in-game adjustments... and that's just pathetic. Clements should be asked to press a whole lot more, and our safeties falling asleep out there is unacceptable. We have pretty good talent on this team, but our poor coaching will never get SF back on a winning track like this. From the JTO fumble (2nd quarter - 12:47 remaining), SF rushed more than their front four DL only 3 times out of 20. (until about 4 minutes remaining in the game... which was when my DVR stopped recording). Not good. QBs like Brees will slaughter teams that give him time.

Posted By: ska (03/10/2008 2:12:59 PM)
Comment: This is a big game for the 49ers. The coaches need to find a way to tap into the inner pride of these players. This is the kind of game where they can define who they are going to be. Are they going to continue to be an also ran in this league? Are they not good enough to play with the big boys? Because you can talk all you want but until you are ready to beat a team like this on your home turf you are not good enough to compete in this league. This is the kind of game that they can define themselves from or I should say will define them one way or another. All the B.S. stops here. You are either good enough or you are not. And the coaches are either good enough to tap into the players to get them to play with all their talent and use all of their preparation . . . or they are not. But the good teams do it, and the mediocre to bad teams do not. Is this the same old team . . . or are they ready to announce their arrival to compete for something meaningful. We will see.

Posted By: mike in marin (03/10/2008 1:34:25 PM)
Comment: i agree with mike, we need to press with our corners and blitz! our corners are our streng,th

Posted By: ninerVA (03/10/2008 1:24:53 PM)
Comment: I think most are in agreement that it does not make sense to use the big sub against 2 receiver sets and so far it has not worked in those situations. If the play calls for blitzing one or more DBs, then it might make sense to have 3 safeties on the field against base personnel. But so far this season, I have not seen many blitzes from the DBs. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. Also, in situations where the offense has 3 or 4 wides, wouldn't it be a better strategy to play a regular nickel and bring on T. Brown or another corner who are presumably better equiped to cover a WR? My conclusion is that the big sub might be good for a change of pace to give the offense a different look, but is not a strategy that should be employed throughout a game.

Posted By: Reno Roy (03/10/2008 1:18:11 PM)
Comment: I'll be the first to admit that I don't know anything about the details of an NFL defense. Sub, Big Sub, Port-a-Sub....whatever. Until Nolan can show me these are a recipe for victory, I'll remain unconvinced and unimpressed. What are we trying to achieve? What's the objective? If it's containment, control, 'bend don't break', play not to lose, I question the philosophy. I want to see an aggressive, fired up team on both sides of the ball. On offense that means imposing your will, and I think Martz is at least going in that direction. On defense that means stopping the run and putting the QB on his butt. As for results, what I've seen so far is a narrow, over-time win over a Seattle team that was playing with WR's they'd signed off the street that week, and a decisive win over a bad Detroit team. I like the wins, but I'm not impressed. IMO, if we play New England like we did New Orleans, they're going to pick us apart and by the 3rd quarter I'm going to start doing something more exciting, like maybe reading 'War and Peace' in the original Russian. And I don't read Russian. Thanks again Matt, and Berger - right on.

Posted By: GilroyAl (03/10/2008 12:41:20 PM)
Comment: Thanks for asking the big sub question, Matt. Munusky didn't really answer your question about Manny though. Does this mean they spent a 1st round pick on a situational player? With his size and speed I can't believe he couldn't cover the tight end as well as the DBs have. The only 1st rounder in the last 4 years who's been an impact player is Willis with Staley progressing. The current rope a dope defense doesn't seem to take account the fact that the long drives they give up takes its toll in the 3rd and 4th quarters, when they really need to be shutting down the other teams offense. Defensively speaking the question is: is this coaching staff able to coach players into becoming better players. I haven't seen it so far. Please don't say Willis because he came in a stud already.

Posted By: Mike (03/10/2008 12:19:59 PM)
Comment: I totally agree with the previous few comments about the use of the "big sub." Maybe Nolan can read this blog and get some ideas for the defensive game plan. (Hey Matt, have you ever asked Nolan if he reads your blog?) When it comes to this weekend against the Pats, I'd like to see less "big sub," more of Clements and Harris matched up on the receivers, and more blitzing to pressure the inexperience Cassel

Posted By: nover (03/10/2008 12:07:16 PM)
Comment: Do you know if the Steve Young ceremony will be televised?

Posted By: Gianluigi (03/10/2008 12:04:55 PM)
Comment: Hi Matt, my answer is that they shouldn't use a sub as their base defense. And, more in general, they should understand if and when to change the gameplan in progress. I remember that 10 years ago, when the Niners had no running game (Kirby and Loville), dallas came to town and started with a nickel defense. the niners run in their face in the first drive, so the cowboys moved back to their 4-3 (eventually winning the game, prompting the major to insult elvis grbac). I went off topic, but it was just to say that maybe our coaching staff should "read" the game a little better

Posted By: Bill (03/10/2008 12:02:27 PM)
Comment: "There was pressure when we played Detroit" "Hasselbeck's rating wasn't very good" Detroit is a bad team with a horrible offensive line. Seattle had a makeshift passing game that week. Neither is a strong endorsement for playing these packages. Nolan is trying to make the facts fit the theory. With the upcoming opponents, the strategy will be tested. Bill B says Mike N is a "good" defensive coordinator. Of course, Bill B and the Pats have been eating up "good" people for years.

Posted By: stampede (03/10/2008 12:01:36 PM)
Comment: Man, I can't believe I'm sayin' this cus I'm not this type of fan...but I'm wondering if Coach Nolan is gonna have to dial down some of Manusky's autonomy. I really like Greg, but he's a new DC. Billy Davis struggled, then (if my memeory serves me right) Nolan took over more responsibility in the defensive execution and they started doing better. I'm not doubting my coaches, but I'm wondering if Nolan really knows yet when he needs to step in. I'm not sayin' "the sky's falling," I'm just a lil' curious.

Posted By: Marco from Stockton (03/10/2008 12:00:34 PM)
Comment: It's way to early to make statements of facts for this season. The one aspect to watch is sacks allowed and sacks taken. Why? Because Football is a possession game and outside of turnovers the more yards you lose by sacks or the more yards to make the other team lose is crucial. The difference between winning and losing in the NFL is very small. On first down it is the most critcial stat. Martz scheme does make more yardage and more scores but it also puts pressure his Offense Line, this is why some don't like his offense. In St Louis he has one of the most talented O lines and the great Jim Flanigan as line coach. We must stop giving up sacks and get more on defense. If we do that the season will be good, if not bye-bye McNolan.

Posted By: ian (03/10/2008 11:53:23 AM)
Comment: "You have to game plan for what they're doing. If you always want to play vanilla and basic, you're going to find yourself behind the stick." On plays in which the 49ers sent just four men, Brees picked them apart. He completed 18 of 24 passes for 315 yards with two touchdowns and one interception. ironic

Posted By: Graham in SB (03/10/2008 11:49:12 AM)
Comment: Great work as always Matt! Always a pleasure to read. I'm slightly baffled by Manusky's response to your question about blitzing in a sub package. He says its important to get pressure on the quarterback, but anyone watching the game last week could see that our 4-man rushes weren't even close to getting to Brees. Everyone talks about how good our corners are, and if that's the case shouldn't we of all teams be able rush 5 or 6 with more regularity?

Posted By: DaveInDavis (03/10/2008 11:48:54 AM)
Comment: Matt, I think most people (including myself) take issue with Nolan using big sub against the base personnel especially against a team with a marginal receiving corps. Naturally there will be situations where you need to employ a nickle or dime defense, but not against base peronnel. Against NE we have to get some pressure on the QB, show different looks on defense, and move Smith around. We've had a difficult time doing this with bug sub.

Posted By: 49er Ben (03/10/2008 11:33:37 AM)
Comment: I agree with sactown, where is the aggressive style D? I think our D plays better when we blitz, and Nolan needs to stop being so worried about the outcome. For example, at the start of last weeks game, we blitzed Brees and he threw an interception. After that we only seemed to rush 4, and we didn't disrupt Brees at all. I don't get it.......BLITZ MORE AND BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!!

Posted By: Lou (03/10/2008 11:26:52 AM)
Comment: Okay, here's the homework assignment for everyone. In this weekend's game: For each defensive play, note whether or not the Niners are in the big sub package; note whether the Patriots run or pass; and calculate the yardage gained/lost on the play. Then, we can compare how often the Pats went to the run or the pass against the big sub vs. a different defensive package. And we can figure out how successful they were in running and passing against the big sub vs. the other fronts. Anyone up for it?

Posted By: shootme (03/10/2008 11:15:48 AM)
Comment: Manusky's response to your question "Q: It seems as if you don't blitz much out of your sub packages..." left me dumbfounded. He said a whole lot, but didn't answer your question even remotely. Moreover, it sounds almost like he gave up on pressuring Brees and Hasselbeck because they COULDN'T get sacks. All he talked about was that they would recognize the blitz and throw the ball away. Last I heard, that was almost as good as a sack. The more you talk about the way the team is run, the more I think Manusky is just as much of a problem as Nolan, if not moreso. After all, Nolan isn't calling the plays...

Posted By: shootme (03/10/2008 11:09:58 AM)
Comment: So am I to understand that the niners don't even HAVE a nickle package, but run the 'big sub' in its place? As for the big sub... the defense knows what personnel the offense has on the field, that's why the NFL made the substitution rules the way they did. Staying in the 'big sub' when the opposition has less than 3 receivers is just laziness (ineptitude?) by the coaching staff. The ONLY way I could see using the 'big sub' with only two receivers is if it's an obvious passing situation. With Lawson's speed, though, that's really not even necessary (assuming he has the coverage skills to take a back or TE).

Posted By: Berger (03/10/2008 11:09:40 AM)
Comment: Winning is easy. The Quarterback must go down, and he must go down hard!

Posted By: Canadian Niner (03/10/2008 11:06:04 AM)
Comment: Matt I believe that Nolan has stated that the reason the keep the big sub package on all the time is because if they didnt, they would have trouble subbing players when the opposition changes personnel. This is the problem!! Keep Goldson ready on the sidelines... it cant be that hard to sub. one player can it!!!

Response: He cited that as a reason -- not THE reason -- for doing it against the Seahawks. He says that the Seahawks have a fast tempo and making those changes and getting to the line of scrimmage for the play. --Matt M.

Posted By: Jed (03/10/2008 11:00:23 AM)
Comment: Matt, to address your Gianluigi question, it's puzzling why SF would pay big money for DBs and yet remain afraid to play press coverage and blitz. Big sub and sub make more sense to hide suspect DBs and let good DLs rush the QB. SF has the opposite personnel, no?

Posted By: Rame (03/10/2008 10:58:14 AM)
Comment: "Do you think the 49ers should never use their "big sub" package, period? Or do you think they should never use "big sub" against an offense's base personnel?" -- Any package featuring extra DB's should be used when needed against an offense with a competent passing attach and proven receivers. If the passing game is under control and the opposition is stomping the 49ers defensive package with a running attack, adjustments need to be made. Even if it's with the "big sub" package - move one of those safeties up into the box to defend the run.

Posted By: sactown (03/10/2008 10:57:27 AM)
Comment: This is starting to smell like Nolan's "umbrella of caution" that smothered the offense last year has now clamped down on the defense. Now that Nolan has passed the offensive control to Martz it seems like Nolan's conservative style has put the 49ers in a vanilla style D with no blitzing and a cautious bend but don't break approach. When you see D's like Philly and Pitt. sending 5 or 6 pass rushers on a regular basis and just crushing the opposing QB's it makes me feel like the Nolan umbrella of caution has now landed on the defense, vanilla won't beat teams like N.E., Philly and NY Giants. Come on Nolan don't coach with so much fear of failure, win with aggression and lose with aggression!

Posted By: Dino (03/10/2008 10:53:23 AM)
Comment: I think that the Niners should not use the big sub, especially against the opposition's base personnel. Deuce McAllister was able to run all over us up the middle. The 3.3 yards average was due to Bush not gaining any yardage. I think Deuce was averaging over 5 yards up the gut. Moreover, I think that they should not use the big sub against teams that have no starting receivers (Seattle). The big sub is like a prevent defense and good QB's will pick us apart ( see Brees). We have pretty good corners so why not man them up and blitz more, especially when teams are missing their starting receivers. The big sub is ok with some type of pass rush. So until they can find a dominant front 4, no more big sub. I disagree with you that the big sub was the right call vs. the Saints. They should've let Clements man up against Lance Moore, provide safety help to Brown and W. Harris, and blitz every other down.

Posted By: Luis408 (03/10/2008 10:44:39 AM)
Comment: I this they should use "big sub" when there is actually 3 or more WR. Even sometimes not even use it to confuse the D when they have 3 or more WR. Do NOT use it when its 2 or less WR. We have good LB that can cover any HB, TE, even a WR. Also, do adjustments during 2nd half!! Every team we played have adjusted to our schemes. Every loss I hear Nolan saying something like "Our scheme seemed good before the game and during the first quarter." NOOO duh! Why can't the 49ers not adjust to other teams? If they know that the scheme is not working during 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarter why don't they change schemes? Can you please ask that to Nolan? and don't let him give you BS answers.

Posted By: mike in MD (03/10/2008 10:43:14 AM)
Comment: CORRECTION: Plummer said you have to mix up the SCHEMES (not coverages - my mistake)..to give the Offense different looks. Go to the 3-4, 4-3, & the sub packages.

Posted By: Robert (03/10/2008 10:40:48 AM)
Comment: I think they should match personnel however it needs to be done during the game. My beef is that they wasted a first round pick on Manny Lawson. I understand that sometimes first round picks don't work out (see Smith, A.), but when you know full well that your scheme is going to have this guy sitting on the bench for more than a majority of snaps why would you take him with your first round pick? It seems like they should've found someone in the same way they found TBC or Takeo to fill that spot. The 49ers had so many holes at that point, why waste the pick on a generally unutilized position? That is pretty much my only beef with the management at this point.

Posted By: gianluigi (03/10/2008 10:16:03 AM)
Comment: Hi Matt, it's Gianluigi, from the italian website of the Niners. I'm pretty upset by the excessive use of the sub packages and,in all honesty, I don't think they worked out very well neither with seattle (hasselbeck's numbers are misleading, he played without receivers) nor (and more evidentely) with the Saints. Nolan and Manusky simply decided that they could afford to leave Drew Brees all the time to pick apart our secondary and that's what he did. Moreover, tha base nickel, as you said, it's a great liability agianst the run, and you can't allow opponents to run on you at their will, or you're gonna lose, even against the Rams ...

Response: Here's my question to everyone: Do you think the 49ers should never use their "big sub" package, period? Or do you think they should never use "big sub" against an offense's base personnel? --Matt M.

Posted By: ninerbob (03/10/2008 9:57:36 AM)
Comment: Matt, I thought most good defenses dictate their own game plan; this seems like the 49ers won't commit to any kind of defense, therefore they have no identity, therefore, they are a pretty tentative (and inconsistent) defense. Wasn't this suppose to be the strength of the team? Last week wasn't a good week for the entire team, but the offense is going to experience growing pains, what is the defense's excuse?

Posted By: Robert (03/10/2008 9:46:27 AM)
Comment: I guess a logical question to ask is why did the 49ers spend a first round pick on a position that only tends to play less than 30% of defensive snaps. Seems like bad use of a pick to me.

Posted By: Ron (03/10/2008 9:44:42 AM)
Comment: Matt, why do the 9ers use Takeo Spikes in the Sub and Big Sub packages, when Lawson is better in pass protection, very good against the run, and can also rush the passer to some extent? I feel he would be better suited for that role, and I'd like to see our best players on the field. Thanks, and keep up the good work, Ron.

Response: I asked Mike Nolan that exact question on Wednesday. His answer: “That’s a good question because it’s an inside linebacker versus an outside linebacker position, but Takeo’s backup is Manny in that package. I’ll say this, as we go forward, Manny will play more and more. Obviously, right now he’s out because he’s got a hamstring. I wouldn’t read anything into it at this point. Manny is a good player and we need to get him on the field no question. He’ll be on the field as we go forward. It’s just certain situations and certain offensive people that they put on the field limit us who can be on the field. One of the things that has happened this year that was different than before is a guy like Ray McDonald, who has come on in the pass-rush situation. Parys Haralson has improved his pass-rushing abilities. The addition of Justin Smith to our roster has taken people like Tully Banta-Cain or Manny Lawson out of the pass-rush and put them in. So, I think we’ve gotten better in that situation. But, Manny is a good player. I don’t want to take anything from Manny. Believe me, I don’t necessarily like to see him there next to me on the sideline at times, but at the same time, by who the offense has out there, I want to make sure we give ourselves the best chance to win as well.” --Matt M.

Posted By: wsmith (03/10/2008 9:41:35 AM)
Comment: Couldn't the fact that Hasselbeck's worst career passer rating was due to the fact that he was throwing to a #6, #7, and #8 WR? How would JT's rating look if he was throwing to Zeigler, Hannon, and Colvin? Nolan couldn't trust a stacked box with Clements, Harris, and Spencer playing 1-on-1 with practice squad and street WR's? This is just par for the course of the idiotic things Nolan does.

Posted By: Dino (03/10/2008 9:40:17 AM)
Comment: Matt, you said, "However, against teams the 49ers don't believe can hurt them against the run, they've also used a lot more of their big sub packages against base offensive personnel." True, but the saints have two good running backs and a very dangerous big play maker in Reggie Bush. McAlister was picking up good chunks of yardage up the gut. You then wrote, "The 49ers played mostly big sub against the Saints. That was the right call." So are you saying that the Saints aren't a very good running team? I think those big run plays set up the big passing plays. I agree with you that the big sub is good when you have pressure and better play from the DB's. The Niners did neither of those but are unwilling to change in terms of calling more blitzes. Heck, they didn't even put in big bodies to stop the run. The big sub needs to go since we do not have enough push from the front 4. NO MORE BIG SUB!

Response: That's exactly what I'm saying. The Saints are a horrible running team. They rank 31st in the league in yards-per-rush. Against the 49ers, they gained only 3.3 yards a pop against a team playing five and six defensive backs. --Matt M.

Posted By: Dirk (03/10/2008 9:16:24 AM)
Comment: "Base - four DBs with either of their 3-4 or 4-3 fronts." In which game this season did we actually use a 3-4 front? I remember 4-3 but I cannot recall seeing 3-4.

Response: They're primarily a 4-3 team, but every time you see Justin Smith standing up, it's a 3-4. My guess is that's around 10 snaps a game. --Matt M.

Posted By: mike in MD (03/10/2008 9:11:01 AM)
Comment: OK so the scheme might be alright..the main thing is like you said with these good passing QB's why did we let down on the blitzes? IMO we went back to Nolan's play it safe mode again totally gearing to D up against the big plays. You cant just sit back there & play reactive ball like that, you have to maintain attacking the QB THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE GAME. Also as Gary Plummer pointed out you also have to mix up the coverages because with Brees for example once he figured out what we were doing & didn't change it up any that's when he tore us apart. C'mon Nolan/Manusky get on it.

Posted By: Rame (03/10/2008 9:04:21 AM)
Comment: Hi Matt, I still don't understand the logic of the game plan vs. Seattle. They had no starting receivers, yet we played 5 DB's and let the Seahawks repeatedly march down the field with a series of run plays. Manny Lawson, the fastest of the linebackers (4.43 40 yard dash at the NFL combine), sat on the bench, while Seattle's tight end led all of their receivers. Why wasn't Manny in there to cover the tight end on pass plays (seems like an ideal match-up), and support run stuffing on rush plays? The 49ers should have dominated, yet came within a coin flip of losing the Seattle game.

Posted By: Cyrus (03/10/2008 9:03:59 AM)
Comment: technically, doesn't M. Lewis replace Lawson and Goldson replace Lewis in the big sub, which is what makes it different from a plain nickel, ie you have a big safety sort of playing a LB?

Response: Yes, that is correct. I was referring to which player(s) come off the field and which player(s) go on. --Matt M.

Posted By: Canadian Niner (03/10/2008 8:59:03 AM)
Comment: Hey Matt Just a quick question in regards to the DBs. What do you think was the main reason that the Saints WRs had such a big day when we were able to limit WRs like Boldin, Fitz, R Williams & C Johnson. These WRs are much better than what the Saints had. I know we had a lot a pressure on Kitna, but I dont recall how much pressure we had on Warner (3 sacks). Do you think we might have been focusing on R Bush too much?? Thanks

Posted By: Marc - NJ49er (03/10/2008 8:57:20 AM)
Comment: Nice piece as always Matt. Getting back to an earlier thread and the name recognition, I believe Bill was reminding all of us that he knew every guy he needed to know relative to the game prep. He's a master of strategy, as we all know. Our opportunity will be taking advantage of their Defense, and keeping them on the field. Their QB is not comfortable in the pocket, and our pass rush has been non existent, so theory says, somethings' gotta give. Hoping for some pressure packages and a few Martz to Belichick move/countermove tactics to work on Sunday. We're certainly an improved offense, so let's see how well we execute against a team who has been preparing for 2 weeks and has issues of their own in the secondary.