Why don't the 49ers spend more draft capital on the OL?

Next years draft is supposed to be loaded with quality OL just like this years was with DL. I suspect they will employ the same strategy next year as they did this year but this time on the OL.

Originally posted by Oscar8325:
Next years draft is supposed to be loaded with quality OL just like this years was with DL. I suspect they will employ the same strategy next year as they did this year but this time on the OL.

I don't know. We did 9 years of drafts. It's always next year, next year, next year with Shany/Lynch. I just don't think they value it much. But I would like to see a year finally where we go all in for offensive line. We do need it with a younger group at several positions. We need C and need to find a TW replacement eventually.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
It's sometimes hard to know what people are responding to with the way some of the comments go on for several pages.

I agree with you about expanding the roster. I also think the NFL needs to explore a true minor league system so players can be developed. The way college players are jumpimg around and getting paid is ruining college ball. If they had a true minor league then players could be signed and developed instead of playing 5 or 6 years in college. They could play in the system that the big team does and be more ready to play. Leave college ball to actual student athletes instead of mercenaries.

This could be done if they wanted to. Colleges would be bette roff and the NFL would be getting players more prepared.

On the quote feature for the site ... I guess quote+ would make it more clear but then the pages get a lot longer quick :)

Tough to get a minor league system for something as injury prone as the NFL. I'd prefer to do something like allow 30 players to be designated and compensated for being available for 11 month a year coaching where coaches can be allowed to work outside of the kind of extreme CBA coaching time/field time limitations. Those guys at the bottom of the rosters would have much better chances to flourish if they were allowed to get more coaching.

If you wanted to institute a thing where teams could develop alliances with college programs for player development and coach development that might work since players are getting paid now.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
I don't know. We did 9 years of drafts. It's always next year, next year, next year with Shany/Lynch. I just don't think they value it much. But I would like to see a year finally where we go all in for offensive line. We do need it with a younger group at several positions. We need C and need to find a TW replacement eventually.

They will never go "all-in" on OL. If they went for OL with their first 3 picks next year then they would have to be projecting all 3 as starters (from what they've said in the past), which would mean in a small number of years all of them would be up for new contracts at the same time, at which point they would be leaving since they don't want to pay big money on the line except to LT.

If an OL they love falls to them at one of their picks they would probably take them, but that would instantly lower the value they assign to the other OL in the draft.

I also think they will never use an early pick for a C. I don't think Shanahan will ever trust a rookie C to make the line calls.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Scoots:
And does that result in a better team? A great OL with Mac Jones at QB, Guerendo at RB, and Jennings and Pearsall at WR. Seems like an also-ran to me.

Which is why I asked for the successful teams that are following the don't pay the QB and weapon formula.

The only example that I am aware is the first Shanahan SB team. Our starting QB was Garoppolo who was so bad in the playoffs I think we had a game where he only had 8 passes. We did not have a highly paid WR or RB. And, for that matter, our OL was sub-par as well. But we had an awesome defense. Take that team, and make the OL great and we would have won.

Also, keep in mind we could have a great OL, and either a great QB or great weapons, just not all 3. You don't have short change both QB and weapons.

Originally posted by fryet:
The only example that I am aware is the first Shanahan SB team. Our starting QB was Garoppolo who was so bad in the playoffs I think we had a game where he only had 8 passes. We did not have a highly paid WR or RB. And, for that matter, our OL was sub-par as well. But we had an awesome defense. Take that team, and make the OL great and we would have won.

Also, keep in mind we could have a great OL, and either a great QB or great weapons, just not all 3. You don't have short change both QB and weapons.

Had the 9ers just had competent QB play in 2019 they would've won it all. Can't expect an OL to make up for that nor should you.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Had the 9ers just had competent QB play in 2019 they would've won it all. Can't expect an OL to make up for that nor should you.

Yes, by the formula of a Great OL plus good QB, that would have been possible. But if I remember correctly, KC Chris Jones was wrecking the 49er OL in the 4th quarter of the SB which is part of the reason why they lost. So not only were they lacking a good QB in the SB, they were also lacking the OL that we are talking about as well.

Originally posted by fryet:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Had the 9ers just had competent QB play in 2019 they would've won it all. Can't expect an OL to make up for that nor should you.

Yes, by the formula of a Great OL plus good QB, that would have been possible. But if I remember correctly, KC Chris Jones was wrecking the 49er OL in the 4th quarter of the SB which is part of the reason why they lost. So not only were they lacking a good QB in the SB, they were also lacking the OL that we are talking about as well.

Maybe we should've just held the way KC did.

Originally posted by Scoots:
They will never go "all-in" on OL. If they went for OL with their first 3 picks next year then they would have to be projecting all 3 as starters (from what they've said in the past), which would mean in a small number of years all of them would be up for new contracts at the same time, at which point they would be leaving since they don't want to pay big money on the line except to LT.

If an OL they love falls to them at one of their picks they would probably take them, but that would instantly lower the value they assign to the other OL in the draft.

I also think they will never use an early pick for a C. I don't think Shanahan will ever trust a rookie C to make the line calls.

I don't think KS will ever trust a rookie to play in his "complicated " system. Not sure if he'll ever use any 1st or 2nd rd picks on the OL. Ersery would have been a perfect 2nd rd pick. It's starting to feel like groundhog day every time the draft comes around

Originally posted by Drod1008:

Originally posted by Scoots:
They will never go "all-in" on OL. If they went for OL with their first 3 picks next year then they would have to be projecting all 3 as starters (from what they've said in the past), which would mean in a small number of years all of them would be up for new contracts at the same time, at which point they would be leaving since they don't want to pay big money on the line except to LT.

If an OL they love falls to them at one of their picks they would probably take them, but that would instantly lower the value they assign to the other OL in the draft.

I also think they will never use an early pick for a C. I don't think Shanahan will ever trust a rookie C to make the line calls.

I don't think KS will ever trust a rookie to play in his "complicated " system. Not sure if he'll ever use any 1st or 2nd rd picks on the OL. Ersery would have been a perfect 2nd rd pick. It's starting to feel like groundhog day every time the draft comes around

Right ... Mcglinchy, Burford, Puni were all veterans before they started.

I think it's because wherever they pick at they don't love the linemen in that slot. If they do they do get them. Like McGlinchey and Puni. I hope people realize the nfl as a whole has issues drafting and developing linemen because of lower level football coaching not doing a great job preparing them for the NFL. I get its a coaches job to win, but you'd think prepping players for higher level football would correlate to wins...

Originally posted by gold49digger:
I think it's because wherever they pick at they don't love the linemen in that slot. If they do they do get them. Like McGlinchey and Puni. I hope people realize the nfl as a whole has issues drafting and developing linemen because of lower level football coaching not doing a great job preparing them for the NFL. I get its a coaches job to win, but you'd think prepping players for higher level football would correlate to wins...

College coaches have a long history of lying about players to NFL teams to promote them to get picked to use to improve their recruiting. They don't have to develop the players they just have to win.

Now that game is changing, where certain programs are destinations for the best prospects and lower schools are going to focus on developing "lesser" talents so they can be sniped away by the "big" programs.

I think over time they are going to learn which of the feeder programs make the best NFL linemen and focus there.

Rosters change so quickly now that teams are often in a position where they need immediate help. That was the case this year with the defensive line. They needed O line improvement but there weren't any big tme starters sitting there when they drafted

One problem with drafting O linemen is many aren't ready to start out of college. The style of play is different and O linemen can't just rely on physical advantages to beat their man. The Niners have had success in recent years which meant they were usually drafting late. The 2 times they were drafting higher weren't great years for O line. Sometimes you just need to get lucky like they did when they needed an edge rusher and Bosa was sitting there when they picked.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Rosters change so quickly now that teams are often in a position where they need immediate help. That was the case this year with the defensive line. They needed O line improvement but there weren't any big tme starters sitting there when they drafted

One problem with drafting O linemen is many aren't ready to start out of college. The style of play is different and O linemen can't just rely on physical advantages to beat their man. The Niners have had success in recent years which meant they were usually drafting late. The 2 times they were drafting higher weren't great years for O line. Sometimes you just need to get lucky like they did when they needed an edge rusher and Bosa was sitting there when they picked.

I think another factor in there is that some positions have much higher draft pick success rates later in the draft than others. OL and interior DL have the highest success rate on later round picks. I think in part because they take time to develop. So you don't swing at a early OL unless you are as certain as you can be that that player is not just the top player on your board at that moment, but that the next player isn't more valuable vs their replacement later.