Solomon Thomas--Stanford

Originally posted by NCommand:
Really nice post and I like your point about building for the future. That said, I think we may be trying too hard to make a player fit.

When you are drafting at #2 (assuming we can't trade back), if you don't go QB, you better get a perfect-fit impact player. Period.

With that mindset, one could make an argument better for a player like Marshon Lattimore, Mike Williams or Corey Davis.

PS: I wouldn't be upset if we took him

Quick question NC where do you see Buckner's best fit on the new line because that to me is the key. He's the crown jewel and we should find his best spot and build from there. If he's a 3 tech that opens the door to pick Thomas and play him in the Bennett role. Armstead may be f'd but when you switch schemes sometimes there's going to be casualties. It also should be noted though that before Bennett was there Seattle had Red Bryant at strong side de mostly 2 gapping. If Buckner fits best there Armstead can play a 1 gap 3 and probably very well too. Or you can rotate who 2 gaps to create some confusion.

Some here are confused.

Michael bennet does not play LEO.

There is more to playing RDE than good
combine numbers.

We shouldn't have to "prove" that Thomas isn't a fit at LEO. He has no tape playing LEO. Those proposing we draft him to play LEO need to "prove" that he can, seeing as to how he never has before. Posting good times at the combine does not prove that he can be an effective outside edge rusher.

All that being said, Thomas isn't necessarily a bad pick. The debate is whether or not you give up on AA. Thomas, if drafted, will be the strong side end, and you will still need to draft a LEO in the 2nd.

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:

Some here are confused.

Michael bennet does not play LEO.

There is more to playing RDE than good
combine numbers.

We shouldn't have to "prove" that Thomas isn't a fit at LEO. He has no tape playing LEO. Those proposing we draft him to play LEO need to "prove" that he can, seeing as to how he never has before. Posting good times at the combine does not prove that he can be an effective outside edge rusher.

All that being said, Thomas isn't necessarily a bad pick. The debate is whether or not you give up on AA. Thomas, if drafted, will be the strong side end, and you will still need to draft a LEO in the 2nd.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Really nice post and I like your point about building for the future. That said, I think we may be trying too hard to make a player fit.

When you are drafting at #2 (assuming we can't trade back), if you don't go QB, you better get a perfect-fit impact player. Period.

With that mindset, one could make an argument better for a player like Marshon Lattimore, Mike Williams or Corey Davis.

Lattimore has injury issues and Williams and Davis would be a reach at #2.

To me this team lacks dominant, game-changing players. Thomas is exactly that kind of prospect. The stuff people knock him for is largely nit-picking. You draft the guy, plug him in wherever and let him make plays.

Its not like this team has an established DL. Most of these guys are role-players and rotational players. Thomas along with Buckner give you legitimate foundational pieces that you can build around.

Agreed. No way you take any of those players at #2. If you think AA can be an impact player you pass on Thomas, trade down, get multiple picks, and take someone like Barnett or Williams. Otherwise, you just take Thomas and put him on the DL with Buckner. One at LDE and 1 at DT 3T.

Originally posted by paulk205:

I don't disagree with you if we expect the #2 pick to slot right in and produce from Day 1. Considering however that this is at least a 2-3 year rebuild before we can seriously think about contending, it might make sense to take BPA here (if we think that BPA is indeed Thomas with Garrett off the board - which he sadly will be) and have him platoon AA at 3-technique where he appears he's the most natural fit. It's not as if we have confidence in AA anyway. In an ideal world, either of the two might develop the ability to play LEO. I also think Thomas might platoon at LEO as well - perhaps he's not ideal for the role right now, but will a lower rounder be that immediately, or indeed ever?

As for trade back, I think I have mentioned in a previous post that I just can't see how we can get value for trading back. #2 is a great pick to trade back from if there are QBs that teams fall in love with, like last year. I simply can't see any of the three top QBs eliciting the same lust from QB-needy teams like Wentz and (stupidly) Goff did last year.

My point basically is: we're a mess right now, and have no confidence in Baalke's prior draft picks. So,we might as well draft absolute BPA and see where the chips fall. If that means platooning a position with high draft picks, so be it: we kind of expect to do this at safety where we have three of those, if we indeed move Ward to FS, as everyone thinks we should (me included). Best case scenario we get a trade piece if we have supernumerary strength in a position. Most people expect AA and/or Reid to be such surplus if we draft someone like Allen or Thomas. As I said, so be it. Let them provide depth right now, or even start when the inevitable injuries mount, and perhaps move them next year.

Wasn't the same thing said about Wentz and Goff last year? I don't have perfect memory but, we can assume what we want. That doesn't mean that we know what these GMs feel about this group of QBs. I say get the impact pass rusher or trade down far enough to get guys that are gonna fill slots now and go rusher next year. We could use a true #1 WR to make this offense scary with Kirk or forgiving for a young guy.

Originally posted by paulk205:

My point basically is: we're a mess right now, and have no confidence in Baalke's prior draft picks.

Who is "we?" As much as the popular thing is to bash anything Baalke was involved with, the 2016 draft class is looking pretty solid thus far with Buckner, Robinson, Blair...etc. Needless to say if he had drafted that way every year he'd still likely be GM in spite of his obvious character and communication flaws.


PFW and a few others have graded that class either a B or an A after a year. Time will tell but it looks like the 49ers got some good foundational talent. Ward did fine as a CB but is even better suited as a safety. Lynch and Armstead are wildcards but there is talent there.


The key is to keep adding impact players to the defense to build on what is already there.

Last year's draft is looking pretty good.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Really nice post and I like your point about building for the future. That said, I think we may be trying too hard to make a player fit.

When you are drafting at #2 (assuming we can't trade back), if you don't go QB, you better get a perfect-fit impact player. Period.

With that mindset, one could make an argument better for a player like Marshon Lattimore, Mike Williams or Corey Davis.

PS: I wouldn't be upset if we took him

Quick question NC where do you see Buckner's best fit on the new line because that to me is the key. He's the crown jewel and we should find his best spot and build from there. If he's a 3 tech that opens the door to pick Thomas and play him in the Bennett role. Armstead may be f'd but when you switch schemes sometimes there's going to be casualties. It also should be noted though that before Bennett was there Seattle had Red Bryant at strong side de mostly 2 gapping. If Buckner fits best there Armstead can play a 1 gap 3 and probably very well too. Or you can rotate who 2 gaps to create some confusion.

To me, Buckner is ideal to play LDE/5T where Michael Bennett plays. Why? This is typically the strong side (where the TE lines up/FB/RB runs towards). Buckner is already really good against the run from his two-gaps days in college and in playing 3-4 end last year. He's strong and quick enough to set the edge, force runs back inside and quick enough with enough pass rush moves to make a ton of TFL there as well as collapse the pocket and collect some sacks. Armstead, on the other hand, really only has about 200 healthy snaps and was less refined coming out of college. Moving to a 4-man DL, moving AA inside between the NT/1T and the LEO (right pass rushers), AA will constantly be single covered and 1on1, he's going to crush people with his bull rush and make life very difficult for the QB esp. with that height and knocking down passing and obstructing view right in the middle of a QB's step-up lane. He'd play a much better role for his skill set in this 4-3 vs. the 3-4 DE (of which he had talent for as well vs. 2 blockers). In addition, he'll be asked to pass rush far more and that's a better strength for him. He'll just need to work on his pad level, plowing over a G/C and keeping his eyes on the RB/QB.

LDE/5T (Buckner) --- NT/1T (Mitchell) --- RDT/3T (Armstead) --- LEO ()

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by paulk205:

My point basically is: we're a mess right now, and have no confidence in Baalke's prior draft picks.

Who is "we?" As much as the popular thing is to bash anything Baalke was involved with, the 2016 draft class is looking pretty solid thus far with Buckner, Robinson, Blair...etc. Needless to say if he had drafted that way every year he'd still likely be GM in spite of his obvious character and communication flaws.

PFW and a few others have graded that class either a B or an A after a year. Time will tell but it looks like the 49ers got some good foundational talent. Ward did fine as a CB but is even better suited as a safety. Lynch and Armstead are wildcards but there is talent there.

The key is to keep adding impact players to the defense to build on what is already there.

It always helps when you have top 10 picks. Hate Baalke all you want but he was great with high picks. So many GM's blow it badly even with top 10 picks.

Originally posted by jreff22:
That argumemt I can understand. It's the people saying his fast 40 and 3 cone prove he's a LEO, that I'm having issues with.

My point has never been that his best fit is at Leo. My point is he's a stud and the coaches will find a spot for him and he will make plays there. Whether it's at Leo or not is up in the air.

You and others pretty much want to throw your hands up and say "he's not a prime fit at Leo so we should pass"

Why?

I agree his best fit is in the Michael Bennett role the only reason I'm bringing up him playing Leo is because I find it silly to dismiss the guy because his best position would move someone else. I like Armstead, i hope he keeps getting better and stays healthy but I don't want us passing on Thomas with the assumption that the line has to be reworked and Armstead would be pushed out, cuz let's be honest Buckner has shown to be better in pretty much all areas so far.

And yes, i have yet to hear a good answer why he can't play Leo outside of "he hasn't done it"

Pretty sure plenty of dominant players in the league went through conversions or are doing something they didn't do in college.

I think people are too focused on base, but teams nowadays spend the majority of their snaps in sub. Focusing on what happens in base is almost pointless because base players are rotated out.

Sub package is what you guys should really be focused on, and in subs, many teams, including the seahawks and falcons, utilize two 3ts. One is usually shaded. That means putting Solomon, Defo, and Armstead on the field at the same time is hardly an issue because Solomon Thomas is a strongside DE and Defo/Armstead are 3Ts.

He's absolutely a fit and a need. If we draft him, the backside DE(leo) will be addressed later. Stop overthinking it.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by paulk205:

My point basically is: we're a mess right now, and have no confidence in Baalke's prior draft picks.

Who is "we?" As much as the popular thing is to bash anything Baalke was involved with, the 2016 draft class is looking pretty solid thus far with Buckner, Robinson, Blair...etc. Needless to say if he had drafted that way every year he'd still likely be GM in spite of his obvious character and communication flaws.

PFW and a few others have graded that class either a B or an A after a year. Time will tell but it looks like the 49ers got some good foundational talent. Ward did fine as a CB but is even better suited as a safety. Lynch and Armstead are wildcards but there is talent there.

The key is to keep adding impact players to the defense to build on what is already there.

It always helps when you have top 10 picks. Hate Baalke all you want but he was great with high picks. So many GM's blow it badly even with top 10 picks.

Pretty small sample size. I would say he was good but certainly not great. I just was so upset when he didnt say Thomas.

2010 Took Anthony Davis with 11th pick - could have had Earl Thomas
2011 Selected Aldon Smith with 7th pick - could have had JJ Watt
2016 Selected Buckner... solid

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:
Some here are confused.

Michael bennet does not play LEO.

There is more to playing RDE than good
combine numbers.

We shouldn't have to "prove" that Thomas isn't a fit at LEO. He has no tape playing LEO. Those proposing we draft him to play LEO need to "prove" that he can, seeing as to how he never has before. Posting good times at the combine does not prove that he can be an effective outside edge rusher.

All that being said, Thomas isn't necessarily a bad pick. The debate is whether or not you give up on AA. Thomas, if drafted, will be the strong side end, and you will still need to draft a LEO in the 2nd.

No offense but I don't need to prove sh*t. At least no more than you or others saying he's not a fit have to prove he cannot. Though I have yet to see someone tell me what skills Thomas does not possess which make a prospect a prime candidate for Leo. From the discussions around here it seems like weight appears to be the biggest factor which I find silly.

i also never said Bennett played LEO so you're getting several people confused.

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:
Some here are confused.

Michael bennet does not play LEO.

There is more to playing RDE than good
combine numbers.

We shouldn't have to "prove" that Thomas isn't a fit at LEO. He has no tape playing LEO. Those proposing we draft him to play LEO need to "prove" that he can, seeing as to how he never has before. Posting good times at the combine does not prove that he can be an effective outside edge rusher.

All that being said, Thomas isn't necessarily a bad pick. The debate is whether or not you give up on AA. Thomas, if drafted, will be the strong side end, and you will still need to draft a LEO in the 2nd.

Well said. I tried to get this across a few pages back. Thomas is a great prospect, but he has never been a weakside pass rusher, like, e.g., Derek Barnett. He profiles more as a strongside DE in our defense, which is not as great an area of need. From my, admittedly limited, film-viewing, he gets to the quarterback mostly through the bull rush or by exploiting inside gaps with his tremendous burst off the line, often with the defense causing confusion with stunts, etc. So, what happens when you isolate him outside against an NFL Tackle? He is tremendously talented, so I don't doubt his potential, but profiling him as a LEO is based on projection more than film.

Originally posted by NCommand:

To me, Buckner is ideal to play LDE/5T where Michael Bennett plays. Why? This is typically the strong side (where the TE lines up/FB/RB runs towards). Buckner is already really good against the run from his two-gaps days in college and in playing 3-4 end last year. He's strong and quick enough to set the edge, force runs back inside and quick enough with enough pass rush moves to make a ton of TFL there as well as collapse the pocket and collect some sacks. Armstead, on the other hand, really only has about 200 healthy snaps and was less refined coming out of college. Moving to a 4-man DL, moving AA inside between the NT/1T and the LEO (right pass rushers), AA will constantly be single covered and 1on1, he's going to crush people with his bull rush and make life very difficult for the QB esp. with that height and knocking down passing and obstructing view right in the middle of a QB's step-up lane. He'd play a much better role for his skill set in this 4-3 vs. the 3-4 DE (of which he had talent for as well vs. 2 blockers). In addition, he'll be asked to pass rush far more and that's a better strength for him. He'll just need to work on his pad level, plowing over a G/C and keeping his eyes on the RB/QB.

LDE/5T (Buckner) --- NT/1T (Mitchell) --- RDT/3T (Armstead) --- LEO ()

Mitchell and AA together inside will get destroyed in the run game. Mitchell isn't a NT. Never has been. He is a penetrating DT. AA will have no chance inside on running downs. He could be a nice Nickle rusher though.

Draft Marshon Lattimore at 2
Find a LEO in round 2 (Jordan Willis)
Draft a NT in round 3 and one later one (Dalvin Tomlinson and Eddie Vanderdoes)

LDE- Deforest Buckner
NT- Dalvin Tomlinson / Eddie Vanderdoes
3 tech- Earl Mitchell / Arik Armstead
LEO- Aaron Lynch / Jordan Willis

That would work. Plus we get a shutdown down corner In Lattimore. Something that we sorely need.

I think it depends on what the coaches think of AA. If they aren't sold on him we take Thomas to play LDE and slide Buckner into 3 tech. If they like AA at 3 tech then we can take Lattimore and call it a day. Regardless we still need a LEO and NT. There are loads of LEO pass rushers available to be had in round 2 and quite a few run stuffing tackles available too.

Personally I want AA to work out so we can add a stud player at a different position.