NOT CAPERS FAULT!

       
       


Yes

SF allowed more than 23 points 4 times all year.  I get that the offense didn't play as well as many hoped, but to act like we were playing some horrible defense like the Packers Cowboys and should have absolutely rolled like 30 points in a playoff game in sub zero weather, is interesting.  

 

And, even if the offense puts up 7 on that final drive, SF marched right down the field, and I'm not at all sure that the Niners wouldn't have simply scored a TD and ended up winning 27-24 anyway.  They were at the 27 with 1:06 and a TO left...

 

 

Which also brings up another point.

 

Some have said if Hyde intercepts that ball and takes it to the house, the game is over.

 

This assumes 49'ers will not answer back with a TD.  Perhaps not likely, but certainly not something with no likelihood.

The Packers had plays to make in that game and could have won that game if even one of those plays had been made. But when you have a pair of Safeties who cannot make a play all year (neither had an interception and one did not even have a pass defensed), when you best ball hawk slot corner is out for the year, when you best cover guy is lost at the beginning of the game and you lose one of your three OLBs and one more gets hurt during the game it's going to be hard to win.

 

Every team has decent players on the field. The difference between winning and losing always comes down to which team can make the game deciding plays. We know the packers offense can make these plays, but so to can SFs offense. The difference was if either teams defense could make those plays. The Packers offense never agave SF a chance to make one but SFs offense gave the Packers 5 chances and they could only convert one of them into a good play.

 

I know many fans want to blame Capers but it isn't the system he uses. That's been a proven NFL defense before. So the issue is obviously talent. The Packers suffered just too many injuries to their play makers that they have not overcome. They haven't replaced Nick Collins, perhaps the best S in the NFL when he went down and a real play maker. Morgan Burnett hasn't ever become a play maker. Hayward is a play maker but he barely saw the field this season. CM3 missed much of the year. 

 

The CBs are very good as shown by their opponent passer rating when thrown against < 80 for each. The Safeties are terrible - Opp Pass Rating > 135 each. 

 

Having a healthy OLB who can line up would certainly help too. GB has three good ones and maybe a 4th but they are all hurt. And they need a fast ILB who can tackle, force a fumble, make an INT. Something. 

CAP95 - the 1st three drives of the game is where the offense faltered. McCarthy and Rodgers admitted as much.

If we need to field 5 pro bowl caliber players to feature a defense capable of winning the super bowl, then Capers just isn't that good (which is what we had in 2010 with Woodson, CMIII, T Williams, Jenkins and Collins, pro bowlers at all levels).  You give any good defensive coordinator 5 pro bowlers and you better believe you'll have a top defense.  Great coordinators put a defense together that is greater than the sum of their parts. Capers hasn't done that in 2011-2013.  

 

That, and Perry, Neal, Hayward, and D Jones were all top 60 picks, so why aren't they being developed?  The majority of players don't show up in the NFL as pro bowlers.  They need to be developed.  Maybe these guys aren't future blue chip, HOF players but I find it hard to believe that they all can't develop into key defensive players.  Where is the development?  We used to see it guys like T Williams, Shields, Collins, Jenkins, Bishop, and Jolly show significant improvement from year 1 to 2, and year 2 to 3.  Now?  We see no improvement from players.  Seriously, what young defensive player showed significant improvement in 2013?  I'd say Shields but i thought he was already pretty solid last year (except tackling, which improved) and he's not that young anymore.  Why aren't guys like Neal, Perry, House, B Jones, Raji, Francois, McMillian, Jennings, etc. showing any real development?  Again, I think it's poor coaching because we see that development on offense.  Guys like EDS, Lang, Starks, and Boykin all seem significantly better in 2013 than they were in 2012 (at least in my opinion).  I even noticed improvement from Lacy and Bakhtiari as the year went on.  We aren't seeing the same development on defense and that is a problem.  

 

This is why i blame coaching.  You may disagree but hard to blame 20+ individual players when the issue is so pervasive.  

 

30 points isn't "absolutely rolling" for this offense, it is their average game with AR.

 

One would think come playoff time we could expect at least an average performance from an AR led offense only missing Finley.

 

I think all the people wringing their hands about the defense in this game are off base.

Perry, Neal, Hayward, and D Jones were all top 60 picks, so why aren't they being developed? 

 

 

Perry was injured the 1st year. Neal has been injured his entire career. Hayward was developing and got injured. D Jones is in his 1st year and appears to be having issues transitioning to the NFL.

Did Perry have a foot problem the second half of the year?

I think he did, Greene broke his off in Perry's ass around week 8.

This misses the entire point. I think very few people are wringing their hands over the defensive performance last game. It wasn't as good as some people claim it was (they didn't force a punt in the 1st half and immediately gave up points right every time GB took the lead or tied). But I think most people acknowledge it was a tough match-up considering the pre-game (Matthews, Hayward) and in-game (Shields, Neal, Mulumba) injuries.

What the hand wringing is about is the performance over the past three years. So yeah, there were extenuating circumstances for the last game. But what about when they let the Bears run out the final 9 minutes (!) of game time earlier in the season? Or when Toby Gerhardt ran right through them? Or last year, when they had a healthy Shields, Hayward, and Matthewsand got absolutely humiliated by CK? Or all of 2011, including that brutal playoff game against the Giants? Frankly, you can even go back to 2009 with that atrocious pass defense against Warner in the playoffs and the 500+ yards they gave up to Big Ben.

 

This is not a single game complaint. This is a prolonged period of time where Green Bay's defense has massively held this team back. Are personnel and injuries a factor in that? Absolutely...but that doesn't absolve the coaching staff.

 

It's football -- you can guarantee next year they'll have some guys banged up on defense and/or guys without elite talent starting. When that happens, does that mean we'll have to accept a year of 9 minute game clinching drives and turning quarterbacks who look ordinary against the rest of the leage (CK) into hybrids of Joe Montana and Fran Tarkenton? Or can the defensive coaching staff find a way to maximize the talent and performance they are given? They did that in 2010...and haven't come close since.

Perry has only been in Green Bay 2 years and has been injured most of that time.  Hayward couldn't get on the field this year. and it was D Jones' first season.  And Neal did make a big improvement this year.  And don't forget about Daniels, who definitely got better.

 

And keep in mind that Shields was said to have regressed badly in year two, Williams didn't blossum until his third season, Nick Collin's lack of development was a major criticism lobbed at Bob Sanders until his 4th season, Bishop took 4 years to achieve starter status, and Jolly only came into his own when Capers arrived in his fourth season.

 

It doesn't happen overnight.

You cite the earlier players, who developed under the current coaching staff, as having developed, but not the latest players drafted.  Hasn't the D staff remained the same since 09?  If the staff was able to develop players before, why would they not be able to develop them now?  Answer: TT has had 2 poor drafts on D not only evidenced by the top picks "not developing" (assuming Perry, Jones, House, etc. can't still) but also evidenced by how many of those 2011 and 2012 picks are no longer on the roster. 

 

I will hedge my bets that TT is aware of this and may shift his philosophy a bit to address the holes on the roster that he thought he fixed with the last 2 drafts.  He will do more in FA this year.  If he strongly things he can't get Dix (shut up) in April he will get a vet FA next to Burnett.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the Packers' defense is a lack of playmakers.  They have one (Matthews).  Shields is getting close, and Williams looks like he might be getting back to that level (which went away with his shoulder injury).

 

In 2010 they had Matthews, Woodson, Williams and Collins all playing at that level.  You've got to have a few of those players to have a great defense.

2012 - Ravens had 6 pro-bowlers (3 D/3 O)

2011 - Giants had 4 pro-bowlers (2 / 2)

2010 - Packers had 5 pro-bowlers (3 / 2)

 

You may not need 5 on defense, but I'd think you need a couple at least.

 

I did the same list a couple pages ago, not no avail.

 

You don't need impact players at every position on D but you need more than 2 (CM3 and SS).  You also can't afford to have guys like Jennings starting.  BAL and NYG may have had only 3 or 2 "pro bowlers" on D but anyone will tell you there were probably another 3 or 4 that were just as deserving.

The way pro-bowlers are elected, we may not need any pro-bowlers on the entire team to win the SB.  

 

I agree with the premise but disagree with using the Pro Bowl as any kind of a metric for "impact" players.

 

Popular ones, yea.

Just to be clear - any wringing of hands I've done about this defense is the result of several years of results, not solely this game, hell I'm not really even all that down about this game.  I mean, it doesn't change the fact that the Niners final two drives consisted of getting the ball after a GB touchdown down 17-13 with 12 minutes left, and scoring a touchdown in 90 seconds; and then the Niners gettin the ball tied 20-20 after a GB FG with 5 minutes left and kicked the GW FG as time expired.  But, yes the defense relative to their previous performances in many games the last several years was better. 

 

But, my point was the Niners are one of the top 3 defenses in the NFL and have been for a couple years. I'm also told that they have pro bowlers at every position, and much more talent than Dom Capers has on his disposal.  Am I disappointed that the offense only scored 20, yes.  But the other side competes as well, and the GB offense was facing one of the best defenses in the NFL, while the GB defense was playing a good, but not great offense.  

 

Either way, I don't think either side of the ball played all that great or all that horribly.  I think there were several missed plays that could have swung the game either way.  SF made them, GB didn't.  Hyde catches it, game over.  Jones doesn't drop 2 balls, who knows.  

Change philosophy??? The last two years, you "all" went nuts celebrating TT's growth into a guy who drafts to fill needs. So many declared 2013 TT's best draft precisely because he "covered" so many holes with his picks. Yeah, he needs to go back to his BPA days. That's the change in philosophy I want to see. The days when needs were largely ignored and TT drafted playmakers no matter where they played. Playmakers win games. Filling holes gets you the best safety and often that safety looks like Jerome McMillan.

Anybody who has fits and walks off the field is not a good player to me.  I agree, pro-bowler is not exactly a great metric.

If he can't get Dix he'll get a vet FA instead of drafting another guy out of Maine in RD4.  That's all I'm saying.

 

2013 draft class IS showing a lot of promise, no?

So is 2012. Still don't like the change in philosphy. TT is a good drafter, but he is better when he goes BPA.

For the past few years, the college scouting has been better with offensive players than defensive players - no question about it. But Hayward, Daniels and Hyde all look like players, Boyd showed some promise, and the book isn't written on Perry, D Jones, or Worthy yet.

 

Hopefully, we'll start to get some return on these investments next year.

 

With a draft and develop system, there will be ups and downs - the Packer's just don't have an Aaron Rodgers on defense that can cover up the weaknesses so effectively.

Understood. I wasn't pointing at you.

BPA is great, if you fill holes in free agency. Again, they don't have to be stars, but solid contributors would help. Leaving a couple of juicy matchups on the field for opposing teams to exploit every week  is also not a good practice.

49ers W/L 2005-2010: 4-12,  7-9,  5-11,  7-9,  8-8,  6-10.

 

That's a lot of top 15 picks to build upon. Certainly you have to hit on your picks, but I think a strong argument can be made that a top 15 pick has a higher success rate than those in the 16-30 range.

 

 

Interesting look back at 1st rounders since 2005 ( Rodgers or Smith ?? ) and what's happened since and how the teams are set moving forward.

 

 

			Packers						49ers
	YEAR	Pick #	Players	POS			YEAR	Pick #	Players	POS
	2005	24	Aaron Rodgers	QB			2005	1	Alex Smith	QB
	2006	5	A. J. Hawk	LB			2006	6	Vernon Davis	TE
							2006	22	Manny Lawson	LB
	2007	16	Justin Harrell	DT			2007	11	Patrick Willis	LB
							2007	28	Joe Staley	OT
	2008	—	No pick	—			2008	29	Kentwan Balmer	DT
	2009	9	B. J. Raji	DT			2009	10	Michael Crabtree	WR
	2009	26	Clay Matthews III	LB
	2010	23	Bryan Bulaga	OT			2010	11	Anthony Davis	OT
							2010	17	Mike Iupati	G
	2011	32	Derek Sherrod	OT			2011	7	Aldon Smith	LB
	2012	28	Nick Perry	DE			2012	30	A. J. Jenkins	WR
	2013	26	Datone Jones	DE			2013	18	Eric Reid	FS

BPA is good if you can be patient and stop freaking out over closing opportunities.

I thought the window was just opening now and things look bright for the next 5-6 years?

So if BPA is never not S in RD1-3 for 2014 draft, who goes next to Burnett?

Hyde

To your first point, I don't think there is any coach in the last decade who has fielded a championship defense with less than 2 pro bowlers. That's what Capers has, he has 1 Pro Bowl player who was injured for 1/3 of the season plus the playoff game. The Pro Bowl may be a dumb measuring stick for players, but more often than not the players who make the Pro Bowl are players who accumulate the flashy stats and highlight reel plays...INTs, Sacks, Tackles, etc. You need at least one guy in every group (DL, LB, DB) getting the flashy stats or at least being productive. Why didn't GB have any Pro Bowlers? No one was getting INTs, Tackle numbers were unimpressive,  and while Sack numbers were overall were solid we didn't have anyone in double sacks. So while we do agree that having 5 Pro Bowlers probably makes any DC look better than he is, I think it's fair to say having 0 Pro Bowlers, or at least 0 players producing good numbers) makes a DC look worse than he is. 

 

To your second point, look at who is around those players on offense that are developing so well...Aaron Rodgers, John Kuhn, and James Starks help Eddie Lacy out. Josh Sitton, TJ Lang, and Aaron Rodgers help David Bakhtiari out. Jarrett Boykin has James Jones and Jordy Nelson. Veterans play as big a role in development as coaches. We saw improvement from Micah Hyde and Davon House, look who is ahead of them on the depth chart, solid veteran CBs (it's not fair to complain about the development of Hayward as he was out the whole year). MD Jennings and McMillan have who? Morgan Burnett? Killer example to be led by. Datone Jones has who? Pickett is the only veteran that is any kind of a good example, maybe CJ Wilson. There is no one in those groups producing  The OLBs, while they have the occasional brain farts, seem to be developing alright...Nick Perry doubled his sack total from the previous year which shows a jump from years 1-2 and the only thing holding him back was health, Mulumba had a respectable showing as a rookie, and Mike Neal had his best season as pro after dropping what, like 40 lbs and switching to a completely new position? That seems like some development. 

 

So yeah player development is different on offense because there are strong veteran leaders producing at a high level for rookies to lean on and look to as examples. Datone Jones can't or shouldn't look to BJ Raji as an example and he can't lean on him for help.

But this staff can't develop players!  He'll fail!

Fine, throw out D Jones for being a first year guy, and Neal, House, Perry, Worthy and Hayward because of injuries.  What about Francois, Lattimore, Jennings and Wilson?  All young guys who have been here for at least 3 years that have not developed into anything more than backups.  Yes, they're undrafted or late round picks but you know what?  So were Jolly, Jenkins, Bishop, T Williams and Shields and some how they developed into very good players.  And yes, this coaching staff did have a part in developing these guys.....which is why it's all the more frustrating!!!!  They have done it in the past but for whatever reason we aren't seeing it anymore.  

 

This is a chicken or the egg argument.  It's probably a little of both: TT hasn't been bringing in quality players while the coaching staff has also struggled to develop them. IMO, it's more on coaching than TT.  Just my take.  

 

Or Richardson. 2013 was year #2 and he missed much of it while sitting on the PUP. In his limited playing time his physicality was very apparent. After replacing Jennings in the 2nd half of the ATL game:

"Very aggressive. I liked what he did on defense," McCarthy said of the 6'2", 216-pound Richardson

 

"He's got a physical presence to him in terms of being able to step up in there," Capers said

What I don't understand is why they continued to give Jennings the bulk of the snaps after that ATL game.

 

 

Richardson's shortcomings on draft day were pretty much the same they were this year (all things considered).  He is good coming up to support the run but not in coverage.  Same with Hyde.   Is it reasonable to assume they still have upside, yes.  But they've been hedging their bets on D&D filling that post-Collins spot for 3 years running and keep coming up snake eyes.  Which is why I think TT grabs a proven FA if at all possible.

So your concern is that they haven't hit the jackpot in undrafted-free-agency in 4 years?  You can't count on those things.  Sometimes the talent is there, sometimes it's not.  I'd be very surprised if any team has had more UDFA success stories than the Packers over TT's rein.

 

Obviously, 1st round doesn't ever tell the only story, but looking at the Niner defense, it was constructed as such.

 

McDonald - 3rd 2007

Dorsey - FA 2013

J. Smith - FA 2008

A. Brooks - FA Waivers 2008

Bowman - 3rd 2010

Willis - 1st 2007

A. Smith - 1st 2011

C. Rogers - FA 2011

Whitner - FA 2011

Reid - 1st 2013

Brown - 5th 2007

 

That 2007 draft was UNREAL.  Willis, Brown, McDonald  AND Goldson.  (AND JOE STALEY  MY GOD)

 

They have also hit jackpot in Free Agency, Whitner, Dorsey, J Smith, Rogers, Brooks (waivers).  Damn.  5 starters on that defense, and all guys I would take in a second.

 

So, where they definitely have had the luxury of better spots to pick than GB, really, they've only had one more Top 10 pick than us 2005-2013.  They picked Alex Smith, V. Davis, and Aldon Smith.  We've picked Hawk and Raji.  Another way of looking at is 2005-2013 the Niners have used 3 picks in the Top 20 for defense.  Green Bay has used 2.  

 

So, I don't think that high draft picks is a big difference between GB and SF.  The bigger delta is that SF has used Free Agency as much to build that defense as drafting.  It's insane the success they've had in FA, hitting on 2 starters would be amazing, and they have 5 really good players there...

 

Still can't get over than 12 month run for then GM Scot McCloughan with the 2007 draft class, then getting Justin Smith and Ahmad Brooks from outside before the 2008 season. 

Aren't position coaches more responsible for development than coordinators? I'm not a fan of Winston Moss, never have been. He's never developed a single worthy LB in the 4-4 or an ILB in the 3-4. Hawk had a couple strong years, but he peaked in 2007. Bishop was good for a coupl years, but overall the LBs have been a weakness under Moss. If anyone needs to go, it should be him.