There are 75 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Bill Walsh- Positions I Would Pick First

I can see why Bill Walsh would pick those five positions first.

The QB, WR, and RB are obvious. Those are skill positions in which the offense will run through, but the QB at #1 is most important in a Walsh offense. If you have an elite QB, he can do a lot. A "perfect throw beats perfect coverage" every time. Also, when you throw in the fact that the Walsh offense was about quick horizontal passes, the offensive line isn't as important. And as someone said... we had Bobb McKittrick.

The pass-rusher and safety are obvious too from a defensive standpoint. I think most would rather have AWESOME pass-rushers and an average secondary over an awesome secondary and average pass-rushers. If you have a great pass-rusher, that pressures the QB into making bad throws. The Safety is that last line of defense and needs to be a good tackler.

It makes sense from Walsh's perspective. He ran a pass-first offense that would put points up on the board quickly. Teams would have to play catch-up and throw the ball late in the game, where pass-rushers and good safeties become even more important. If you look at how the Colts are built, it makes sense.

But there's no right and wrong way to build a team... Just depends on preferences. There's nothing wrong with what McCloughan has TRIED to build for our current team. I think he's really invested at the offensive line (Rachal, Baas, Staley, Snyder, Free agents like Marvel Smith, Jonas Jennings, and Larry Allen), but failed horribly this year. We've been building more towards what the Cowboys were in the 90s but haven't gotten the production out of our offensive line and Alex Smith. If these two spots produce, we're doing a lot better as a team.
Originally posted by tn9er:
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
Originally posted by wysiwyg:
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
BW had McKittrick converting castoffs from other teams into servicable players so he didn't think he needed to waste high picks on OL.

McIntyre, Wallace, Sapolu, Barton, Cross (2nd rounder), Bubba (1st pick in the 2nd round), are hardly cast offs but I know what you are saying

Exhibit A -- Derrick Deese, Bruce Collie

I wonder what McKittrick could have done with this oline.

He wouldn't have allowed Walsh to pick these Clodsdales...

Right, always the lighter and athletic linemen to fit the west coast scheme. When Shanahan left SF and went back to Denver as HC, he immediately copied our profile. And won.
Andy Lee
I would replace the WR with an OT. Especially if I get a franchise QB. If I had someone like Peyton Manning as QB I can stick some average WRs in and he'll make them productive.
Originally posted by chimp914:
I would put a OT second or third on that list.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not going against Walsh. If he said it, I believe it!
yea i'm trusting bill walsh, last night on sports center when they were talking about the pats going for it on 4th and 2 they said bill walsh had the greatest offense of all time
Originally posted by miked1978:
I would replace the WR with an OT. Especially if I get a franchise QB. If I had someone like Peyton Manning as QB I can stick some average WRs in and he'll make them productive.



The difference between the Colts and the 9ers? The Colts have a Line in front of Manning.

The 9ers(especially our fans) expect their QBs' to go out there and perform miracles without one.

We COULD have another Manning on this team only we would never know it because they are too busy running for their lives on Sundays.

Notice the key word is COULD folks. If you feel compelled to bash me for "comparing Smith to Manning" well then you should've spent more time in School and less time on your xBox.

~Ceadder
Walsh certainly realized the importance of OL. He also understood that you must have excellent position coaches. Those two joined with McKittrick. The discussion then becomes chicken/egg. The truth is; both, the draft picks and the coach made the OL what it was. Cross, Ayers and Fahnhorst were all overshadowed by the "skill positions" but they were Pro Bowl-level players who never received the recognition they earned.

But Walsh also realized that the secondary was critical in a game that was already moving to make it more of a passing league. When he drafted Williamson, Lott and Wright in the same year, he pulled off one of the best drafts ever and also recognized the importance they be a unit, not individuals stars. Add Dwight Hicks and they were all that.

OL and secondary are very similar in that they only play at max effectiveness when they are well-coached and have played together long enough to know instinctively what each other will do. As long as they are guessing they will get beat. So my answer is, I want a solid OL and secondary, then comes the QB and receivers. RBs are plentiful but the passing game takes more time to develop so they must come first.

Happy Monday...
Originally posted by dj43:
Walsh certainly realized the importance of OL. He also understood that you must have excellent position coaches. Those two joined with McKittrick. The discussion then becomes chicken/egg. The truth is; both, the draft picks and the coach made the OL what it was. Cross, Ayers and Fahnhorst were all overshadowed by the "skill positions" but they were Pro Bowl-level players who never received the recognition they earned.

But Walsh also realized that the secondary was critical in a game that was already moving to make it more of a passing league. When he drafted Williamson, Lott and Wright in the same year, he pulled off one of the best drafts ever and also recognized the importance they be a unit, not individuals stars. Add Dwight Hicks and they were all that.

OL and secondary are very similar in that they only play at max effectiveness when they are well-coached and have played together long enough to know instinctively what each other will do. As long as they are guessing they will get beat. So my answer is, I want a solid OL and secondary, then comes the QB and receivers. RBs are plentiful but the passing game takes more time to develop so they must come first.

Happy Monday...

Again dj, head on the nail. ITA.

Further in the link, Walsh says:

There certainly are merits to this "trench" approach. Some believe that the health of the quarterback might be better protected. And if the line was physically dominating, the theory is that you could install a relatively simple plan to help control the clock, which is good for a new team on offense and defense.

Obviously if a team wants to be consistently great, it will need a great offensive line. But in this case we are talking about starting with nothing and becoming as competitive as possible as quickly as possible.

When we won our first Super Bowl championship with the 49ers after the 1981 season, our left tackle was a smallish (245-pound)Dan Audick. We're talking about left tackle, the position people believe is so important because it protects the blind side of a quarterback, or a right-handed quarterback at least.

Audick was a very intense player, but we had to make adjustments to account for his deficiencies and we were still able to go all the way. Yes, the offensive line is critical to become a consistent championship contender. But to become competitive initially -- sort of overnight -- here are the positions I would pick, and why....
[ Edited by NinerGM on Nov 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM ]
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
BW had McKittrick converting castoffs from other teams into servicable players so he didn't think he needed to waste high picks on OL.

You beat me to it.
Originally posted by JohnnyMo49:
1. OL

2. OL

3. OL

4. OL

5. OL


Having a dominant O-Line is great, but teams that win multiple SuperBowls almost always have a franchise QB.
Originally posted by 49erRider:
Originally posted by JohnnyMo49:
1. OL

2. OL

3. OL

4. OL

5. OL


Having a dominant O-Line is great, but teams that win multiple SuperBowls almost always have a franchise QB.


and most teams that have a good franchise QB have a good-great OL in front of them.
1. QB
2. LT
3. DT/NT
4. CB
5. WR
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
Here is the challenge before me: Pick five players from different positions to start a new team.

So the question is, which five positions would be most important to me?

It is an intriguing situation and I wouldn't be surprised if five different coaches went about this task five different ways.

And who's to say one way is right and another is not? After all, Super Bowls have been won by teams with decidedly different approaches to the game, both in philosophy and personnel.

Still, these are the positions I would fill first, in order:

1. Quarterback.

2. Pass Rusher

3. Safety

4. Running back.

5. Receiver.

Link

I can't believe your watching this team suffer with a s**tty OL and you don't list one in your top 5? Haven't you also seen this team show a very good D without a dominate passusher yet you have that as your #2?

QB
LT
NT
CB
OL
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by matt49er:
Originally posted by Ronnie49Lott:
Here is the challenge before me: Pick five players from different positions to start a new team.

So the question is, which five positions would be most important to me?

It is an intriguing situation and I wouldn't be surprised if five different coaches went about this task five different ways.

And who's to say one way is right and another is not? After all, Super Bowls have been won by teams with decidedly different approaches to the game, both in philosophy and personnel.

Still, these are the positions I would fill first, in order:

1. Quarterback.

2. Pass Rusher

3. Safety

4. Running back.

5. Receiver.

Link

I can't believe your watching this team suffer with a s**tty OL and you don't list one in your top 5? Haven't you also seen this team show a very good D without a dominate passusher yet you have that as your #2?

QB
LT
NT
CB
OL

Yeah, Bill Walsh was clueless.