49ers fire defensive coordinator Steve Wilks

[El Ramster]

1 hour ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Shanahan rolled the dice on someone outside the organization, and it didn't work out. Shanahan deserves some backlash for hiring Wilks, and putting him in a bind forcing him to run someone else's defense without any of his own assistants brought in. At the same time Wilks could have passed on the job. Sucks to see him shuffled out on to the street like a bag of garbage, but the NFL is brutal like that which everyone involved should understand. Kyle has to play ******* sometimes in these situations, and has a duty along with Lynch to do what is best for the franchise moving forward.

Yeah, a lot Of us felt really bad when Sean let go of Jones and basically fired Wade. Very painful. Still though to see Wilks fired is a surprised. Much more than Joe Barry as crazy as that sounds. Guess the gang got together in Cancun and talked BIDNESS and they stood on it. 

[Soko]

3 hours ago, Soggust said:

Well in 22 they were 1st in points, 1st in yards, and 2nd in turnovers.

I'm not sure what we were expecting besides regression lol.

In 23 they were 3rd in points, 8th in yards and 5th in turnovers. 

I'd be really skeptical of joining SF if I was a DC candidate and I had to produce a top 3 defense my first year or get fired.

edit - while getting overruled by a micromanaging offensive HC

It’s fine to expect regression, but isn’t it also fine to identify a bad fit and a JAG coaching job? You’re a professional coach on a SB contending team that’s known for having elite talent on defense, why shouldn’t there be pressure?

I think it says a lot about how unattractive Shanahan is as a micromanager, if he was a new-to-school HC that was having mixed success. Like, Matt Patricia in Detroit. But the fact is that SF has had a recent run of success on the defensive side of the ball, have a ton of talent there, have been knocking at the door of a SB, and their last two guys who got HCing opportunities didn’t have to deal with that “micromanaging HC” because they were actually good at their job. Says a lot more about Wilks than it does Shanahan, IMO. If Kyle goes out and starts doing this to each of his DCs, then I’d be more open to him being a control freak, but so far this is all we’ve heard.

[mtmmike]

9 hours ago, Forge said:

But it also outscored the season average KC gave up by 5 points. Was actually a pretty good compromise that KC got a slightly better end of, admittedly. 

Because it benefitted a ton from the offense. Again, this is something that people have been talking about all year. I've been saying they are overrated all year. The defense wasn't all that great, and certainly should have been better with the roster it has. Look at the numbers @Xenos just posted . And there are others.  Since week 11, they were legitimately a bottom 10 defense in a lot of metrics. All lead up to the super bowl it was people talking about how bad the 49ers defense had been. 49ers writers had been talking about this for weeks, and the forum has been talking about it for more than half the year about wilks being one and done. 

It just wasn't a fit. It was a bad hiring from jump. He's not getting fired because of the super bowl, he did fine there outside of a few instances. He did better than I expected at any rate. 

As @iknowcool said, I think he's a guy that should be a position coach + assistant head coach. He seems to be an excellent secondary coach. 

Hi forge did not want to hijack your subject I apologize.

that said how much under there season average did they score in the superbowl?

the point is Shanahand offense is not a genius on the biggest platform you do not see Andy Reid second guessing his defense they held a 28.5 offense to within a couple of points of there season average.

the point SHANAHAN is not a genius period

he he was out coached and outplayed by Andy Reid’s team.

 

[mtmmike]

7 hours ago, Forge said:

Never heard one thing about shanny overruling the other dcs.   This was clearly just a bad fit from jump and a bad decision by shanny. He didn't even fit the profile. Saleh and Ryans were both rah rah sideline guys. Wilks is almost timid and locks himself in the booth. Really just a curious match all the way around

DC of the niners should be a high pressure job right now given the roster. But the upside is clearly obvious as well. The first two didn't take long to become head coaches. You have the players to be extremely successful and put your name in the spotlight. Don't think the next guy has to worry about one and done so much (don't want to cultivate that kind of rep) unless you are really bad, but definitely high expectations

 

Ok forge ready to have you day made

who could he have hired that would change this outcome

[vegas492]

14 hours ago, jrry32 said:

The 49ers should hire a misunderstood genius like Joe Barry.

Possibly.  But can Bosa be CB1?  ...asking for a friend.

[Leoric]

2 hours ago, mtmmike said:

Hi forge did not want to hijack your subject I apologize.

that said how much under there season average did they score in the superbowl?

the point is Shanahand offense is not a genius on the biggest platform you do not see Andy Reid second guessing his defense they held a 28.5 offense to within a couple of points of there season average.

the point SHANAHAN is not a genius period

he he was out coached and outplayed by Andy Reid’s team.

 

Quite frankly I’m amazed anyone is critical of the Niners players or staff. They took the defending champs to overtime in the Super Bowl. Surprised to see Wilks go. Not sure how this will benefit them long term and will be interesting to see who fills the spot. 

[Chiefer]

Figured this would happen when Bosa said that they weren’t prepared enough for the Chiefs and the zone option/read, that means coaching wasn’t good enough. 
 

I also feel like Bosa is way too hyper-aggressive and the Chiefs regularly take advantage of him, no matter who’s coaching. 

[Soggust]

7 hours ago, Soko said:

It’s fine to expect regression, but isn’t it also fine to identify a bad fit and a JAG coaching job? You’re a professional coach on a SB contending team that’s known for having elite talent on defense, why shouldn’t there be pressure?

I just think expecting a top 3 defense because "look at the talent" seems like a very similar take to "half the starters in the league would have a top 3 QB season if they had  5 or 6 all pros on the offense".

My position is that I don't think it's easy to produce top 5-8 results, regardless of talent or offensive benefit, so the "he underperformed this year" accusations seem a bit slanderous to me, when the defense was one of the better ones in the league, even if not as good as last year.

I have no problem with moving on because of personal/philosophical differences, so the bad fit take is fair imo.

[mrscottso]

I mean the guy did take a great defense, and make them good.

[Forge]

31 minutes ago, Chiefer said:

Figured this would happen when Bosa said that they weren’t prepared enough for the Chiefs and the zone option/read, that means coaching wasn’t good enough. 
 

I also feel like Bosa is way too hyper-aggressive and the Chiefs regularly take advantage of him, no matter who’s coaching. 

From 2018 LOL:

On 12/31/2018 at 6:13 PM, Forge said:

He doesn't really have any major red flags / weaknesses. He has things he can improve, obviously, but nothing that is a major concern. He's not the most explosive or bendy athlete ever, but neither was Joey. His biggest weakness may be awareness / recognition? He's so aggressive at times that he can get washed out by a good scheme block, may over pursue and he may break off his containment, bite hard on play actions and the like. Other than that, there's really not a ton not to like. He's never played a season as grueling as the NFL schedule, so he may hit a rookie wall hard. His first two years, he was in a big time rotation (that's why his bulk stats aren't uber impressive), and then this year, when he would have been on the field more than ever, he got hurt and decided not to come back. 

 

Bosa is awesome, and he's actually been really good in both super bowls against the Chiefs, but he has the same  flaws now as then lol

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

I just think expecting a top 3 defense because "look at the talent" seems like a very similar take to "half the starters in the league would have a top 3 QB season if they had  5 or 6 all pros on the offense".

How’s that remotely similar? I’m not saying any DC could come in and field a number one defense with this team. I’m saying that the defense under Wilks was weaker this year than it was last year, despite the roster being largely the same (debatably better). Wilks objectively does not coach defense (and never has) the way we saw Ryans do it. Elite defenses generally don’t have long shelf lives, so I don’t see the benefit in settling for Wilks. The talent won’t be there forever and Wilks is maybe a hair above JAG level of a coach. 

If the 49ers inserted a new QB in 2024, and they regressed with largely the same team, I’d say that that QB fielded a worse offense than Purdy did in 2023. I know you like ruffling feathers with the MVP argument, but this really isn’t similar to that at all. 

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

My position is that I don't think it's easy to produce top 5-8 results, regardless of talent or offensive benefit, so the "he underperformed this year" accusations seem a bit slanderous to me, when the defense was one of the better ones in the league, even if not as good as last year.

How is it slanderous if that’s literally what happened? The defense in 2022 gave up less points (and points per drive), gave up less yards (and yards per drive), created more turnovers, gave up less first downs, was much better vs the run, had a better scoring percentage, was better on third down, and was better on fourth down. The 2023 defense was slightly better getting pressure and in the red zone.

So, yeah, pointing out that the defense regressed with Wilks hardly seems “slanderous” to me. It’s actually factual. 

[Soggust]

3 minutes ago, Soko said:

How’s that remotely similar? I’m not saying any DC could come in and field a number one defense with this team. I’m saying that the defense under Wilks was weaker this year than it was last year, despite the roster being largely the same (debatably better). Wilks objectively does not coach defense (and never has) the way we saw Ryans do it. Elite defenses generally don’t have long shelf lives, so I don’t see the benefit in settling for Wilks. The talent won’t be there forever and Wilks is maybe a hair above JAG level of a coach. 

If the 49ers inserted a new QB in 2024, and they regressed with largely the same team, I’d say that that QB fielded a worse offense than Purdy did in 2023. I know you like ruffling feathers with the MVP argument, but this really isn’t similar to that at all. 

?? lol this has nothing to do with the MVP argument.

It's simply that expecting to maintain or improve on a #1 defense in points and yards while #2 in turnovers feels ambitious to me, regardless of returning the same talent.

They were the best D in the league, which would be hard to maintain even if they had returned Ryans. And now we are basically saying "well he wasn't as good a DC as Ryans, so we needed to fire him". But Ryans was a COTY candidate so maybe Ryans is just good, right? 

Are we firing Orr if the Ravens don't have the best D in the league next year? If they take a step back to like a top 5-7 defense? 

===

I'm asking rhetorically because obviously the easy answer is they fired Wilks for philosophical/personal reasons not directly related to performance blah blah, but even though I 100% believe that's true - IJS I can definitely see why the optics might look like this was a scapegoat firing to the average fan.

[AZ_Eaglesfan]

2 hours ago, Soggust said:

I just think expecting a top 3 defense because "look at the talent" seems like a very similar take to "half the starters in the league would have a top 3 QB season if they had  5 or 6 all pros on the offense".

My position is that I don't think it's easy to produce top 5-8 results, regardless of talent or offensive benefit, so the "he underperformed this year" accusations seem a bit slanderous to me, when the defense was one of the better ones in the league, even if not as good as last year.

I have no problem with moving on because of personal/philosophical differences, so the bad fit take is fair imo.

How is expecting similar results with equal or better talent level slanderous at all lol? Especially when you consider the fact that their offense was actually better this year and helped their defense more?

Sure the expectation that he should call someone else's D is unfair... but he agreed to it. If you are going to accept a job knowing the terms it doesn't absolve you of blame if you underperform... and that is what their defense did. Is it hard having a top 3 defense? Sure. But I fail to see how it is unfair to have those expectations for a roster that is essentially the same or even better. The only major change they made was at DC. That is pretty clearly the main factor in the regression year over year.

Edited February 15 by AZ_Eaglesfan

[Soggust]

6 minutes ago, AZ_Eaglesfan said:

How is expecting similar results with equal or better talent level slanderous at all lol? Especially when you consider the fact that their offense was actually better this year and helped their defense more?

Sure the expectation that he should call someone else's D is unfair... but he agreed to it. If you are going to accept a job knowing the terms it doesn't resolve you of blame if you underperform... and that is what their defense did. Is it hard having a top 3 defense? Sure. But I fail to see how it is unfair to have those expectations for a roster that is essentially the same or even better. The only major change they made was at DC. That is pretty clearly the main factor in the regression year over year.

Well, he did have a top 3 defense in points, so that's not actually what we want.

Really, we are expecting the #1 defense, if we are expecting similar results, right?

So, I'll propose the same question to you - If the Ravens finish 5th overall defense next year, are we firing Orr? 

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. Clearly, I'm in the minority on this take and maybe I'm just wrong /shrug. I'm like 0/6 today alone lol.

But as a constant mediocrity apologist, I don't think I would be, unless there were other personal or philosophical factors at play.

[Soko]

22 minutes ago, Soggust said:

?? lol this has nothing to do with the MVP argument.

It's simply that expecting to maintain or improve on a #1 defense in points and yards while #2 in turnovers feels ambitious to me, regardless of returning the same talent.

They were the best D in the league, which would be hard to maintain even if they had returned Ryans. And now we are basically saying "well he wasn't as good a DC as Ryans, so we needed to fire him". But Ryans was a COTY candidate so maybe Ryans is just good, right? 

Are we firing Orr if the Ravens don't have the best D in the league next year? If they take a step back to like a top 5-7 defense? 

===

I'm asking rhetorically because obviously the easy answer is they fired Wilks for philosophical/personal reasons not directly related to performance blah blah, but even though I 100% believe that's true - IJS I can definitely see why the optics might look like this was a scapegoat firing to the average fan.

No, but it’s same ilk as the “so and so has a good team” thing that you bring up in every other thread or so.

I never said you had to return the defense to the same rankings in X or Y category, but they were almost worse across the board. Again, I fail to see why you’d find pointing that out to be slanderous when it is in fact what happened. 

Ryans is good. I think Saleh as a defensive guy is good too. I don’t think Wilks is. So maybe that’s why the 49ers moved on? Go figure. Even then, was anyone calling Ryans or Saleh defensive prodigies? Like, what did they do so incredibly innovative in SF? They fielded great/elite units, which is awesome, and shows their aptitude as coaches, but were they straight up confusing people the way MacDonald was? I don’t believe so. It’s different faulting a guy for not being as innovative as the last one, than it is not being as competent.

So yeah, if the Ravens were absolutely loaded everywhere on defense (which I don’t find them to be, not to the extent SF is), had already shown that they’re elite with multiple coaches (which I don’t believe they have the way SF has), was hiring a coach that had a track record of mediocre results, and then regresses in nearly every category (the way SF has)? Move on, go find someone better.

You don’t need to be #1 in points or whatever else every year - but nearly across the board regression? With the same, or better talent? With a better offense to help prop you up? And then regress even further come the postseason? It’s not as simple as “oh they went from #1 to #5”, the way you’re trying to pretend it is. 

Don’t see why it’s slanderous to point out that they were worse and that SF is fine moving on.

Edited February 15 by Soko