Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

San Francisco 49ers Discussion

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dan, for the millionth ******* time, Manny wasn't "misused" early in his career. He was completely ineffective at rushing the passer. The team was forced to use him in other facets of the defense. They only "misused" him when they asked him to rush the passer where he would either get pancaked by the OT or he would use his worthless speed rush and would get pushed well beyond the back of the pocket.
    The Brian Sabean sig is no more. I disagreed with you on so many levels. And then you went out and built a dynasty. I am lame.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Borat View Post
      Dan, for the millionth ******* time, Manny wasn't "misused" early in his career. He was completely ineffective at rushing the passer. The team was forced to use him in other facets of the defense. They only "misused" him when they asked him to rush the passer where he would either get pancaked by the OT or he would use his worthless speed rush and would get pushed well beyond the back of the pocket.
      Sorry but I think that he was. He was drafted to replace the pass rushing ability of Julian Peterson and despite the fact that he wasnt Peterson, they tried having him rush the passer anyway which is what led to him always being in coverage. Nolan and company didnt know how to use Lawson. They drafted him to be the pass rushing threat that they lost in Peterson and he wasnt that and despite them knowing that, they still tried to do the same thing with him.

      Basically, in my opinion, if he wasnt seen as the replacement for Peterson, we wouldnt be having this conversation and because he'll forever be linked as Peterson's replacement, he'll forever be seen as an average OLB even though he's better than average and easily our best OLB period.

      Comment


      • I'm super confused by your last post. You contradict yourself too much. Doesn't matter though. Manny is average. Good against the run. Average everywhere else. If he wants huge dollars, I'd let him walk. He's very replacable. I'd prefer an olb that can create pressure on his own anyway. Manny's numbers only improved last year when the players around him improved.

        I agree that cb will be a 2011 draft target. But we can always address olb in the second or third round. Or maybe Brooks is legit. I'm not really concerned about the Lawson situation. He's not elite.
        The Brian Sabean sig is no more. I disagreed with you on so many levels. And then you went out and built a dynasty. I am lame.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by binary View Post
          Well, he's certainly a better all around OLB than Haralson.
          Both are average players that can probably be easily replaced.

          Originally posted by dan77733 View Post
          Sorry but I think that he was. He was drafted to replace the pass rushing ability of Julian Peterson and despite the fact that he wasnt Peterson, they tried having him rush the passer anyway which is what led to him always being in coverage. Nolan and company didnt know how to use Lawson. They drafted him to be the pass rushing threat that they lost in Peterson and he wasnt that and despite them knowing that, they still tried to do the same thing with him.

          Basically, in my opinion, if he wasnt seen as the replacement for Peterson, we wouldnt be having this conversation and because he'll forever be linked as Peterson's replacement, he'll forever be seen as an average OLB even though he's better than average and easily our best OLB period.
          Well once we went to a 3-4, Julian Peterson was terrible. So we weren't really replacing a pass rushing threat, seeing as we didn't have one. Actually we haven't had a pass rushing threat since the 49ers were in a 4-3. We're still trying to find that Demarcus Ware type of player. Lawson isn't that guy. He would have shown SOMETHING by now.
          Last edited by Ness; 06-21-2010, 04:23 AM.

          "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
          -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
          Originally posted by Borat
          Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Brent View Post
            Uh, disagree.
            I disagree. Like Ness said though, both are pretty mediocre. Haralson should be a rotational pass rusher though, nothing more. He stinks vs the run, stinks in coverage, is slow, and had less sacks than Lawson with more opportunities...we all should hope that Brooks takes his spot. Lawson saved the D from a lot of big plays due to his range and he was a beast vs. the run...Haralson pretty much did nothing the whole year aside from the first Arizona game.
            Last edited by binary; 06-21-2010, 04:37 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dan77733 View Post
              Sorry but I think that he was. He was drafted to replace the pass rushing ability of Julian Peterson and despite the fact that he wasnt Peterson, they tried having him rush the passer anyway which is what led to him always being in coverage. Nolan and company didnt know how to use Lawson. They drafted him to be the pass rushing threat that they lost in Peterson and he wasnt that and despite them knowing that, they still tried to do the same thing with him.
              He was drafted to be a pass rushing threat, that's correct. What else would an undersized, fast college defensive end be asked to do in the NFL?

              Good against the run, good in pass coverage. That's all fine and dandy, but it sure is to the benefit of the offense when they know we aren't going to send Manny because he'll never hit home. That makes protections a little more simplified, and makes it easier to formation us.
              Originally posted by Babylon
              It's called Karma for all the years with Montana and Young.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by binary View Post
                I disagree. Like Ness said though, both are pretty mediocre. Haralson should be a rotational pass rusher though, nothing more. He stinks vs the run, stinks in coverage, is slow, and had less sacks than Lawson with more opportunities...we all should hope that Brooks takes his spot. Lawson saved the D from a lot of big plays due to his range and he was a beast vs. the run...Haralson pretty much did nothing the whole year aside from the first Arizona game.
                I should be more clear, I think Haralson is better because the one thing we really need from our OLBs (pass rush) is the one thing he does well.

                Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Brent View Post
                  I should be more clear, I think Haralson is better because the one thing we really need from our OLBs (pass rush) is the one thing he does well.
                  Actually, I don't think he does that very well either. He's rushing the passer a heck of a lot more than Lawson or Brooks, and he had less production than BOTH...and this is supposed to be his ONE strength. 5 freaking sacks last year as the main guy, 5. The guy is really lucky he's starting right now.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Borat View Post
                    I'm super confused by your last post. You contradict yourself too much. Doesn't matter though. Manny is average. Good against the run. Average everywhere else. If he wants huge dollars, I'd let him walk. He's very replacable. I'd prefer an olb that can create pressure on his own anyway. Manny's numbers only improved last year when the players around him improved.

                    I agree that cb will be a 2011 draft target. But we can always address olb in the second or third round. Or maybe Brooks is legit. I'm not really concerned about the Lawson situation. He's not elite.
                    How did I contradict myself? Lawson isnt average. He's better than average. He's good against the run and in coverage and even on special teams where as Haralson isnt even average. Haralson had one good eight sack season and everyone here thinks that he's better when he's not. If Haralson is worth $10m over the next four seasons, Lawson is easily worth MORE than that.

                    Personally, I would double it but I wouldnt go past that because I dont think any team would offer him more than that unless they were desperate. As for finding an OLB who can create pressure on his own, good luck with that because you'll rarely find one in the draft and even if you do, he could turn out to be the next Kamerion Wimbley so in a way, you're not gaining anything and any team that does have an OLB like that isnt going to let him leave.

                    So, Lawson having better numbers is only because of the players around him? That can be said for everyone around Willis, so whats your point? And if the players around Lawson are getting better and makes Lawson better, ISNT THAT THE POINT of building a good defense?

                    CB should be our first round priority in the 2011 NFL Draft period because thats our next weak link. Using a high round draft pick on another OLB to replace Lawson doesnt make any sense because its only 50/50 if that guy becomes better than Lawson and to me, its not worth the risk and gamble.

                    And im so tired of hearing about Brooks. He had ONE good game against the Cardinals and thats it. He hasnt done a damn thing in four years other than that and yet, everyone here is already looking to replace Lawson (and/or Haralson) with him which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

                    As for Haralson and Lawson, lets do a quick comparison, Haralson has 130 tackles (92 solo), 15.5 sacks, no forced fumbles or interceptions in 55 games played. Lawson has 181 tackles (139 solo), 12 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, 1 interception and im sure that he has a few blocked field goals as well in 48 games played. Plus, people seem to forget that Lawson was injured in 2007 and it takes two years to fully bounce back from an ACL/MCL/TCL tear (dont remember which).

                    We'll never ever get back to where we belong if we just keep letting good young players leave and replace them with players who'll have to learn the system. Not only that but considering that we have a few overpaid veterans who'll most likely be gone before the 2011 season, its not as if money should be an issue.

                    Originally posted by Ness View Post
                    Both are average players that can probably be easily replaced.

                    Well once we went to a 3-4, Julian Peterson was terrible. So we weren't really replacing a pass rushing threat, seeing as we didn't have one. Actually we haven't had a pass rushing threat since the 49ers were in a 4-3. We're still trying to find that Demarcus Ware type of player. Lawson isn't that guy. He would have shown SOMETHING by now.
                    I think Haralson is average but Lawson is good and worth extending. I dont think that Lawson can easily be replaced because draft wise, you have a 50/50 shot at getting someone better but on the flip side, you could always get someone worse. Like I said in my response to Borat, its not worth the risk and gamble.

                    Peterson wasnt terrible. He was solid considering he was ging through a transition from a 4-3 OLB to a 3-4 OLB and coming off an ACL/MCL/TCL tear (dont remembr which) the year before which as everyone knows, usually takes two seasons to bounce back from and look in 2006, Peterson only had 10 sacks with SEA. In 2003, Peterson had 7 sacks so in a way, Lawson was meant to be Peterson's replacement but it hasnt worked out that way.

                    We're not going to find that Ware type player and personally, we dont need that type of a player anyway. We were tied for 3rd with 44 sacks and only 5 away from being first in sacks. We dont need a Ware type player and trying to find one instead of using the players we have is only going to hurt the defense because by the time we find a Ware type player, everyone else is either going to gone or past their prime to eve take advantage of it.

                    Originally posted by king2am View Post
                    He was drafted to be a pass rushing threat, that's correct. What else would an undersized, fast college defensive end be asked to do in the NFL?

                    Good against the run, good in pass coverage. That's all fine and dandy, but it sure is to the benefit of the offense when they know we aren't going to send Manny because he'll never hit home. That makes protections a little more simplified, and makes it easier to formation us.
                    Well, obviously he was asked to play in coverage and provide support against the run. As for the undersized part, Lawson is 6'5, one inch shorter than Jason Taylor who played DE at 255 when he was the Defensive Player of the Year in 2006. I'm sure that the coaching staff could have told Lawson to add some weight if that was the problem but they didnt because they favored speed over anything else at the time. With Singletary, its the opposite.

                    As for not blitzing Manny being a benefit to opposing offenses, I disagree because last time I checked you have 10 other players on defense and the 3-4 is supposed to allow you to send so many different combinations at any time that the opposing offenses shouldnt know who's coming or not. And if Manusky only sends Lawson and Lawson doesnt get to the QB, maybe Manusky should send more than just four rushers or try Lawson in the middle or on the other side instead of the exact same place. Add in the fact that if Lawson just played first and second down, he's going to be just as tired as the OL are where as a guy like Brooks who's coming off the bench is fresh and energized.

                    Bottom line is that everyone here has their own opinions on whethe or notthe team should re-sign Lawson. If its for no more than double what Haralson is getting paid, I would easily re-sign him. If he's asking for $7-10m a season, then I would most likely let him leave or trade him for a draft pick or a player who can help us at another position.

                    Also, if LaBoy is worth $4.5m for ONE season, how can Lawson NOT be worth more? Come on guys.

                    My top three are still the same in regards to who should be extended-

                    Davis, Goldson and Lawson.

                    Comment


                    • All of the anger.... hahahaha

                      For those questioning both Lawson and Haralson, I think too many of you place FAR, FAR, FAR too much weight on sack numbers and ignore everything else.


                      For Haralson...

                      sure, he only achieved 5 sacks last season but he played, according to recent reports, with one healthy arm. His 8 sacks in 2008 were the 5th best in the entire NFL for 3-4 OLB's.

                      As for Lawson...

                      His 6.5 sacks ranked him a disappointing 12th amongst 3-4 OLBs, but he lead the 4th ranked team in that category, while not even being on the field during a significant number of passing situations. Lawson had only 2 fewer forced fumbles that the NFL's leading 3-4 OLB and ranked a tremendous 3rd in tackles.


                      Sure he may not be a 15-20 sack per season guy like DeMarcus Ware but not many are. We should consider ourselves fortunate that we have a trio of OLB's that ALL rate quite highly amongst their peers, and Lawson is the most consistent in all areas.

                      Comment


                      • see my sig and see how I feel about the situation


                        Comment


                        • Scot McC is headed to Seattle. WTF? Did they ever figure out why he was let go?

                          Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Brent View Post
                            Scot McC is headed to Seattle. WTF? Did they ever figure out why he was let go?
                            mutual parting. he was extended leave to figure out where he wanted to go for personal reasons.


                            Comment


                            • McCloughan said that he was blindsided and let go. The "mutual" decision is probably bullcrap and just an attempt at good PR by the Niners.

                              I personally think that McCloughan was let go because Singletary wanted more power and he wasnt going to get it as long as McCloughan was around. I'm not worried about McCloughan going back to SEA since Carroll is the one in charge.

                              I'm kind of surprised that McCloughan didnt go to CLE to reunite with Holmgren in some level. Oh well.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by YAYareaRB View Post
                                see my sig and see how I feel about the situation
                                UGH. I ******* HATE KOBE!!! And yes, I was hoping for Boston to BEAT LA. Oh well, thankfully, I stopped watching the crappy NBA a long time ago.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information