There are 68 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Bill Walsh- Positions I Would Pick First

Originally posted by B650:
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.

ewww misread badly...sorry guys i was thinking in terms of this year with how bad our ol was doing. major fail
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by matt49er:
Originally posted by B650:
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.

ewww misread badly...sorry guys i was thinking in terms of this year with how bad our ol was doing. major fail

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

I didn't write the article, Bill Walsh did.
Originally posted by matt49er:
Originally posted by B650:
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.
I didn't write the article, Bill Walsh did.

ewww misread badly...sorry guys i was thinking in terms of this year with how bad our ol was doing. major fail
[ Edited by matt49er on Nov 16, 2009 at 8:48 PM ]
So were saying Steve Young and Joe Montana always had great O-lines? I think it was better coaching than anything. They weren't big but made up for it with a lot of motion plays and agile pineman pulling to run block.

THat being said I completely concur with BW. Of course I do lol, but anyway QB is so important and it has been for EVER now. A good QB can make an average O-line look better/serviceable.

WIth a great QB...Championship
Originally posted by matt49er:
Originally posted by matt49er:
Originally posted by B650:
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.
I didn't write the article, Bill Walsh did.

ewww misread badly...sorry guys i was thinking in terms of this year with how bad our ol was doing. major fail

It's all good man. No harm no foul
Originally posted by Ceadderman:
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

I'm sure you saw the Colts Pats game.

There was a play where Brady was fairly well protected, and Collinsworth started singing the praises of how great the Patriots O-line is.

On the very next play, their RT gets destroyed by Mathis, who comes straight at Brady. Brady might have had about 1.5 seconds to get the ball away.

Most quarterbacks would have been toast, a bad quarterback might have turned the ball over, but Brady spins to his right (straight where Mathis was going to hit him) and makes an unbelievable throw to the flats that not only avoided the sack, but picked up yards.

Not a WORD mentioned about how the Patriots O-line got destroyed on that play. They just talked about a "nice" play by Brady, ho hum diddly dee.
This play of course is just one small example of what Brady does about a dozen times a game, week after week, year after year.
Nobody cares about the O-line if the quarterback bails them out, time and time again. They look at the stats after the game and think, "Gee, the O-line must have played well." All of the great plays that avoid sacks do not show up in the stats, they just show up as "completed passes."

Without Brady, the Patriots O-line would be known as just average at best.
Same with the Colts, same with the Saints.

Fans of teams with bad quarterbacking always bash the offensive line. There is probably only one team in the league who most fans agree have a good quarterback with a bad offensive line, ironically, the Green Bay Packers and Aaron Rogers.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Nov 17, 2009 at 1:36 AM ]
Originally posted by ninerfan818:
So were saying Steve Young and Joe Montana always had great O-lines? I think it was better coaching than anything. They weren't big but made up for it with a lot of motion plays and agile pineman pulling to run block.

THat being said I completely concur with BW. Of course I do lol, but anyway QB is so important and it has been for EVER now. A good QB can make an average O-line look better/serviceable.

WIth a great QB...Championship

There were many games in which Joe and Steve absolutely got KILLED by opposing defenders. Of course, I'm sure a lot of that has to do with heavy blitz schemes and having 5 passing options instead of leaving a RB or TE in to block.

Also, Joe and Steve were agile QBs who could move around. If the pocket collapsed, they were able to make plays with their feet. I think people forget this about Joe because we had Steve, but the Dolphins Super Bowl is a great example of Joe's ability to use his legs to make plays.
  • GORO
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,822
Although the niners didnot usually draft OT in the first round, when they developed players like Steve Wallace, they locked them up to long term contracts.

Under Walsh and Seifert the Niners drafted DL early in the draft and rotated their pass rushers.

So the trenches is where they would build first
I'm an old lineman, so that explains my first two picks


1. LT

2 .NT (in a 3-4 defense

3. CB

4. QB

5. SS
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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....

Thank you Niner GM for posting this. I was wondering if the other critics who kept pushing for O-Linemen to be in Bill's list actually clicked on the link and gave it a short gander. It's not all that long.

Now, perhaps HE didn't consider it important because Monte Clark actually drafted the line that protected Joe Montana's hindside (except for Audick) -- so it was already in place by the time he arrived. In other words -- in 1979 -- it wasn't a position of "need."

We've been drafting linemen for a good while now. We've used some high draft picks. They are simply not all busts. Coaching might be the real culprit/problem here. Walsh RARELY -- if EVER -- used a high pick on a lineman. He picked them up in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds and the coaching made it work.

No -- the game has not passed Bill Walsh by. If he were to step down from heaven he would turn this team around in a year or two. He proved that when he returned for a couple of short years to slap together a team that would go on a three-year playoff run (our last run). He did it with spare parts, Elmer's glue and used chewing gum. The man was a master.
  • jaghetersofie
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by billbird2111:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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....

Thank you Niner GM for posting this. I was wondering if the other critics who kept pushing for O-Linemen to be in Bill's list actually clicked on the link and gave it a short gander. It's not all that long.

Now, perhaps HE didn't consider it important because Monte Clark actually drafted the line that protected Joe Montana's hindside (except for Audick) -- so it was already in place by the time he arrived. In other words -- in 1979 -- it wasn't a position of "need."

We've been drafting linemen for a good while now. We've used some high draft picks. They are simply not all busts. Coaching might be the real culprit/problem here. Walsh RARELY -- if EVER -- used a high pick on a lineman. He picked them up in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds and the coaching made it work.

No -- the game has not passed Bill Walsh by. If he were to step down from heaven he would turn this team around in a year or two. He proved that when he returned for a couple of short years to slap together a team that would go on a three-year playoff run (our last run). He did it with spare parts, Elmer's glue and used chewing gum. The man was a master.

+1
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

Wow do u even watch the games.
Originally posted by Ceadderman:
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

Originally posted by chimp914:
I would put a OT second or third on that list.

Uh...I'd think that is a priority and should be number one!!!! That's like making the Rims on the car a priority over the engine. Ill say this again....you can have Joe Montana back there....it won't do us any good...if our OL SUCKS!!!