From: GC.SUL@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sullivan)
Subject: Re: 49ers/Rams
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:15:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.013114.7134@netcom.com>,
mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
I wrote:
>>What you are dreaming of is having the absolute best player in the
>>league at every position.  Kind of tough to do, drafting at the end
>>of the pile year after year.
>
>Let me rephrase:  now that the Niners have a legit rushing game, DL
>ought to be top priority.  And what I hope they focus on are players
>that are more all-purpose than the current squad who can stuff the
>run but are poor at the pass rush.

I don't want to go back and forth- I'm right, your wrong kinda
stuff.  Fagan and Holt are outstanding all around D linemen, maybe
not the very top of the heap, but good enough.  My only point that
can be tested is that you will see them have a lot more success
later this season in the pass rush.

Do you dis/agree about my opinion about the emphasis of the defense?
Do they ask their linemen to play the run?  It is an emphatic point
on my part that disagrees with the newspapers and most Niner
critics.  Do you dis/agree that the Niners platoon their D linemen a
lot?  That, to me, has a disadvantage in a single game, an
advantage in the long haul of a season.  To me it explains in an
athletic way, the success of the Niners in the late/post season.

>
>>I predict they'll be great in december when it counts and not

as a
>>response to 'problems' now.  All part of the plan.
>
>It counts now, too.  The Lambs game could have gone the other way.
>
>>>Actually, I think the real reason the Niners shine late in the year
>>>is that their offense is so complex that they don't get into sync
>
>>Their defense is just as complex and requires just as much
>>synchronization(sp).  This is why Hall has been having so much
>>trouble and why they brought back Jackson.
>
>Why do you think their D is that complex?  It's a given that the
>offensive game is as intricate as any in the league.  What evidence
>do you have that the defense is any more complex than others?  Dana

I have no evidence, no playbooks, no meaningful conversations with
Keena, or Walsh, or anything.  My OBSERVATION, however, watching the
game for years has been that the Niners are very careful to set up a
defense not to put a player in a position to fail.  In other words,
keep the play in front of you, tackle sure, hit hard, play good
fundamentals within the system we expect. The philosophy says that
it is a hard thing to execute in the NFL against the kind of talent
out there: don't beat yourself.  There is a lot of platooning-
everybody on the defensive squad plays every game. I often see the
elephant position (Haley, Harris, Dean) dropping back in coverage
for some inexplicable reason, I've seen Romanowski/Turner cover
every position back/TE depending on down/situation/score.  I read
that Lott/Reynolds/Turner in various news articles over 12 years
state that the defensive scheme was very complicated.  Last week, I
read in the Chron the Niner staff was going to simplify it some over
the next couple weeks.

>Hall is probably more of an example of the tough transition to the
>NFL in general, not to the Niners in particular.

Can't disagree with this part. I'm still glad we have him rather
than Vaughn Dunbar as Ralph (clueless) Barbieri emphaticizes(sic).
>
>This doesn't jive with my (fading) memory.  Do you have any
>supporting stats?  (I admit I don't...)

No, and I won't look it up.  Look at it this way: the Niners have
never been undefeated in a season. I can only think of one season
where the last couple games were meaningless and they lost badly to
the Rams in that one.  The rest were meaningful in terms of getting
home field advantage right to the last game.  This means they lost
a couple or 6 games up to then.

My point of reference, my argument rests from listening to the same
criticisms of the Niners after many a close win or tough loss
against terrible teams in the early season- Malone and Pittsburgh
in '83, for example.

My point of reference is some Niner fans looking at the last
two seasons as failures, though no game was lost by more than 7,
they were a field goal away from a Super Bowl again.  To me they
were unqualified successes, Super Bowl victory or no.  How can you
rag on success like this?  Last year was a GREAT year - exciting
competitive successful football.

I don't expect to turn these criticisms, more years I am more wrong
than right, as the Niners won the big one only 4 times out of 10 in
the last decade.  Just get off their case, you are ragging on THIS
Season's champs!

Mike

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro