Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

49ers trade LB Cam Johnson to the Colts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BUzzzard


Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 397
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I mean at least we are admitting failure in that draft class. We have only gotten potential from it, ala Baldwin. Plus, if Cam Johnson really does perform, then the pick will likely go up in value making it a potential steal for us for a player we weren't going to keep anyway. We have such good linebackers all over the board, that even if Cam had starting potential we would have to dump him to strengthen other parts of our roster that may be weaker.
_________________
Greg Jones to the Niners in 2011
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forge


Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 7148
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NINERFAN_4_LIFE wrote:
RedWhiteNGold wrote:
Don't really get why we're dumping all our OLBs.


I'm sniffing a move to a 43 defense. Aldon and lemon could play de


I personally don't see that happening; I think we'll continue with the 3-4 base/nickel hybrid. To add to that, I don't think Lemonier is big enough to play on the line even in the 4-3. That would be more Tank's role. Tank's body type allows him to put on an added 15-20 pounds of muscle to play on the line, I just can't see that with Lem and the way he's built (could be wrong of course).
_________________


Two in harmony surpasses one in perfection - P3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Swift21


Joined: 20 Oct 2011
Posts: 1090
Location: SF
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
Hmm.. I'm surprised about this. I liked our depth. Now, it's basically just Lemonier, because I don't believe we'll see Skuta much on defense.


Agreed. This is putting a lot of pressure on the rook if Aldon or Brooks go down. Not a fan of this trade.
_________________

Sig credit goes to IDOG_det
SoS wrote:
Pete is just an arrogant wanna-be Jim Harbaugh but he's just not as smart.
Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 420
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rudyZ wrote:
y2lamanaki wrote:
rudyZ wrote:
DirtyJersey9er wrote:
RedWhiteNGold wrote:
Don't really get why we're dumping all our OLBs.


We still have 4. Everyone thought 5 was a bit much and that Cam was a cut candidate a few days ago.



I still consider Skuta an ILB. He's more of an emergency OLB. He's not someone I want rotating on D, really. But that gives more playing time to Lemonier, which is fine by me. I just don't like where it leaves us if someone gets injured. Maybe we'd have to play more 4-3 instead, which is also fine by me.


Skuta played 0 preseason snaps at ILB, playing only as an OLB, and the pressure he got (from what I watched) was more consistent than Johnson through the first 3 games (the last game, Johnson really broke out).

I certainly don't mind keeping only 4 OLBs (we kept only 3 last year). If anything - this signals that Lemonier is going to have a huge role on this team.


Okay... so I already know how to sing, but I can't dance, and I want to be in a Broadway musical. Do I take more singing lesson, or I take dance lessons? Skuta already knew ILB, it would make sense, if he has some of the skillset, to work him out almost exclusively at OLB in order to improve at that position, because he already knows ILB. But that's pointless to my... well, point. My point is that, while he will be listed at OLB, I don't expect him to play OLB at all. Whenever we give one of our OLBs a breather, we'll either play 4-3 (with Bowman sliding outside), or play Lemonier. I don't really see a circumstance where Dan Skuta will be one of our 11 best defenders, where he will need to be on the field at all.

But if Aldon or Ahmad gets injured, are we really good with having Skuta see significant playing time, as a rotating player, or worse, if we have another injury to an OLB? I'm not comfortable with that at all.


This makes no sense. Did you miss preseason? Skuta was CONSISTENTLY in the opposing team's backfield. I, for one, was shocked by how good he looked rushing the passer becuase he had been strictly a ILB for the Bengals. And against 1's and 2's for other teams. As opposed to Cam, who flashed ONE game, against 3rd and 4th stringers. Skuta is a standout STs player and has versatility that Cam doesn't have. Point blank, he's a better football player than Cam at this point in time and provides more to the team than Cam ever could. This shouldnt even be up for debate. If Cam had consistently flashed against even 2nd stringers, for all four preseason games, I could maybe see your point. But the fact is, Skuta was more impressive as a pass-rusher during preseason play. I have no problem with Skuta as depth behind Aldon and Brooks. I suspect he'll be the first OLB off the bench, not Lemonier. And not that I don't like Lemonier because I absolutely wanted him before the draft. I think he will be the best pass-rusher on the team in 3 years. Better than Aldon. I know that sounds like utter hyperbole at this point its what I believe at this point. Aldon is mainly a power rusher. He's extremely good at it but its really all that's in his asernal. Lemonier has it all. Cat-like quickness, killer first step, yet he's strong and powerful enough to bull-rush. And he has a bevy of pass-rush moves in his arsenal. I studied him a lot before the draft last year. I didn't see a better well rounded pass-rusher than Lemioner in the entire draft. None.


Last edited by 757-NINER on Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:02 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
757-NINER


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 420
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as the 4-3 goes. We give 4-3 looks with 3-4 personel. We're a mutiple 3-4 team, meaning we morph into some 4-3 looks depending on formations and personnel. But we are a 3-4 team through and through. A attacking, one-gap 3-4. Its just we see ALOT of mutiple WR formations, therefore more 4-man lines(nickel) becuae most teams cant run on us and all but abandon the run by the middle of the 3rd quarter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
49ersfan


Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 6514
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too thought Skuta was better. He was consistent in every game as an OLB...let alone being a ST ace. While Johnson was on the bubble until game #4 and showed little until then.
_________________
-Not taking this off until the 49ers win #6
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clarkfn2284


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 3202
Location: Modesto,CA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that this trade isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I liked what Cam Johnson showed against the chargers, but he did virtually nothing the first 3 games.

Skuta was consistent on the field. He was in the backfield consistently and his versatility makes him super valuable.

To answer your question Rudy, yeah I am comfortable going forward with Skuta instead of Cam. I liked what Cam showed for 1 game. I liked what Skuta showed all preseason, plus his ability to play on ST more than Cams. I know Cam blocked a punt, but Skuta has the ability to be the leader of the st unit.
_________________
NextBigThing wrote:
rice wasn't close to do as good as his stats would lead one to assume


okie dokie!!! He only had 1200 rec yards at 40, but he clearly isnt as good as it appears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14008
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

757-NINER wrote:
As far as the 4-3 goes. We give 4-3 looks with 3-4 personel. We're a mutiple 3-4 team, meaning we morph into some 4-3 looks depending on formations and personnel. But we are a 3-4 team through and through. A attacking, one-gap 3-4. Its just we see ALOT of mutiple WR formations, therefore more 4-man lines(nickel) becuae most teams cant run on us and all but abandon the run by the middle of the 3rd quarter.


Exactly. I think in this day and age it's hard to call teams 4-3 or 3-4 as if that's all they do. As for us, we play a 4-man d-line twice as often as a 3-man d-line. Aldon and Brooks (with Justin and Raymac between them) were probably our most used alignment last year. Now Lemonier and Skuta can give them some rest and provide backups in case of injury.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group