Kurt Coleman or Mike Mitchell?

[CoastalCat]

4 hours ago, TheRumGone said:

I have a soft spot for Mitchell. I loved that dude.

but it seems like each respectively did/does different things for those respective defensive unit because both are completely different defenses mentally.

 

2013 we were more hard/hitting, physical. We would just man up and beat the poo out of opponents. With mike bring the hammer.

 

2015 squad just seems to be a smarter unit. Coleman is a heady player. He's not as athletic as Mike but he reacts well and knows how to be in position (except that one run against the Eagles)

mike could make up for some stuff because he was extremely athletically gifted.

 

so each one was just as valuable to their respective units IMO.

 

 

I miss Mitchell too. He was a real passionate, vocal guy who I loved to watch. 

I will say that I liked our 2013 unit, and style, better though. Even though it was mostly due to the fact that a pass rush not only existed, but was really strong. It made our secondary look great. Coleman might be the better player at the end of the day, because he's had to be.

[luke nukem]

is coleman only signed for this year? fug man I hate that.

[PhillyB]

mitchell was marginally better in run defense. coleman is significantly better in pass defense. i'll go with coleman.

they play different positions anyway

[TylerVagyler]

27 minutes ago, luke nukem said:

is coleman only signed for this year? fug man I hate that.

He signed a two-year deal

[luke nukem]

5 minutes ago, TylerVagyler said:

He signed a two-year deal

nice. gettleman learning on minor past mistakes. praise him.

[GoobyPls]

I think both are about the same, average players who benefit from our front 7. Last week was the first week Coleman played out of his mind outside of that he's been OK.

[TheRumGone]

5 hours ago, luke nukem said:

nice. gettleman learning on minor past mistakes. praise him.

We were a team in cap transition that's why we gave all those one year deals. Once we had some breathing room you started seeing more two year deals this offseason.

 

in regards to Mitchell. I would love to have him again at the end of his career if only for depth. Knowing his story and where he fell to hell in Oakland then signing that monster contract is just awesome. Such a good dude who gave his absolute all here. I will always respect that man for what he brought to that 2013 squad with his passion and hard nose play. I actually heard he was playing better this year for the steelers but I haven't seen many games of them. Glad he got paid, even if it wasn't by us (which was a good move).

[TheRumGone]

11 hours ago, top dawg said:

I really can't see how anyone that actually goes deeper into the statistics over their respective careers would pick Mitchell over Coleman. He has just been a step ahead of Mitchell which is probably representative of being a smarter player because the two are similar athletically.

 

No way are they similar athletically.

 

mitchell is like 6 foot 1 220 lbs and ran a 4.39 40. He is freakish. Which is why the raiders drafted him in the second. Coleman is solid and heady 5 foot 10 195 lbs. eye test also proves this. 

 

And as as for the penalties another poster mentioned about Mike. That is bs. Look at the stats he only got them in preseason. The 49ers playoff game one was bullshit. Aikman and Buck said as much.

[Ace_Aladdin]

Colin Jones.

[Steves89]

I do really like Colin jones. I'd dig a buffalo package with Mitchell Coleman and jones. 

[Toomers]

8 hours ago, sanjay_rajput said:

Colin Jones.

  I've been wondering why Jones hasn't gotten more of a look a Safety. Especially in 3rd and long, where the coverage skills he shows at Nickle CB have to be an upgrade on Harper. I'm not saying he the answer or anything. Just that with his skill set of speed, solid tackler in open space, coverage ability, and experience, I'm curious why he hasn't been given more of a look.

 

   They may have given him looks in practice, for all I know, and he didn't have the instincts for it. Just something I thought was possible with Jones play down the stretch last year.

 

[top dawg]

8 hours ago, TheRumGone said:

No way are they similar athletically.

 

mitchell is like 6 foot 1 220 lbs and ran a 4.39 40. He is freakish. Which is why the raiders drafted him in the second. Coleman is solid and heady 5 foot 10 195 lbs. eye test also proves this. 

 

And as as for the penalties another poster mentioned about Mike. That is bs. Look at the stats he only got them in preseason. The 49ers playoff game one was bullshit. Aikman and Buck said as much.

I am not talking about their physical stature,  I am talking about the way that they play the game---basically lay the wood and attack the ball. The eye test should tell you that from a purely football perspective,  Coleman is better in coverage (as he takes much better angles) and seems to make better reads,  but he is just as adept in run support and is a hard hitting,  if not a more fundamentally sound tackler.  They are both athletically gifted. The only thing that Mitchell has over Coleman is size and speed,   but Coleman's smarts more than trumps those physical differences. At the end of the day the stats say that Coleman is better,  because he is. He is the more complete package. 

[Navy_football]

Mitchell...

Made me not miss Chris Harris so much. Dang, that was my dude!

If that team had this schedule (with today's Eagles and Colts), they would easily be undefeated too. Possibly 16-0. 

[General_Purr]

I feel like they are completely different players.. Mike is the faster (by far) more quick and better in pass coverage by his fast twitch and his blitz is better but Coleman is a more controlled mentally & stronger. Which is a better fit for us. He really showed out for us vs the Colts which was awesome. Ill always be a Coleman fan after seeing him put it on the line for a big game. 

 

Coleman.