49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Goodwin isn't a bad receiver. Pettis isn't either. Or Bourne. None are "bad" receivers.

But how many want a WR at 13?

Yet when it comes to OL, we're OK with Tomlinson, Garland, Brunskill, Person and Skule not being bad.

The point is adding top talent to ANY unit...like we did with the DL...so much so we just had to trade our best one away.

We're a long long way away from having an equivalent OL of that caliber.

I'll never understand how fans can devalue the OL given our history of producing some of the very best units and players in the HOF today.

Most of them want one because of the value of the guys that could be available fit at 13. There is no interior OL that does.

That's an example this year but you know I've preached this "concept" for years.

But is the top G, C or T just as important as the top WR...even this year?

Chances are at 13, you're getting the 2nd or 3rd best WR, CB or T. At 31, probably the 2nd or 3rd best C or G.

In the end, you still have a chance to get a top player at each position. Value of the player to the unit is the same. My point.

On a bigger scale of this issue is that Kyle has only used 1 top pick on OL, period. It's been all very late or UDFA's.

So even talking OL in the first is probably moot so we'll be talking about this all year again...for the 11th year in a row. Haha

Originally posted by NCommand:

That's an example this year but you know I've preached this "concept" for years.

But is the top G, C or T just as important as the top WR...even this year?

Chances are at 13, you're getting the 2nd or 3rd best WR, CB or T. At 31, probably the 2nd or 3rd best C or G.

In the end, you still have a chance to get a top player at each position. Value of the player to the unit is the same. My point.

It should be looked at player by player. I dont disagree fans generally overvalue weapons.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:

That's an example this year but you know I've preached this "concept" for years.

But is the top G, C or T just as important as the top WR...even this year?

Chances are at 13, you're getting the 2nd or 3rd best WR, CB or T. At 31, probably the 2nd or 3rd best C or G.

In the end, you still have a chance to get a top player at each position. Value of the player to the unit is the same. My point.

It should be looked at player by player. I dont disagree fans generally overvalue weapons.

True. And to your other point, the quality of those positions change. There were no T's last year. This year 7 are projected to go in the 1st and deep after that. WR is top heavy strong and then steady good for like 5 straight rounds.

seems like theres already been alot of action for the OL FA market. and wev had no part of it. i hope thats cause they plan on using the draft heavily for OL. hopefuly go weapon at pick 13 and trade pick 31 for a OG an CB in rd 2. then get another guard in the 4th or 5th. we dont really have a need to draft for anywhere else. ya staleys old but he held his own this season an played well. we can draft for that in another year or two.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

How will be forced to play Spoon? We have a more than capable player in Moseley. As long as Sherman can play, and he's not injured, we cross that bridge when we come to it. Today, right now, our starting center isn't healthy and his back-up and the guy playing next to him will struggle to sustain drives and score FG or get shut out in the 4th quarter. I have more faith in the coaches and Saleh to find the next starter (other than Spoon) than starting Garland and Person as Jimmy protectors. And to say that it's either a IOL *or* a CB is a false choice, just like you're saying reaching for a player at 13 isn't there.

Its not an or. Im just not locked into one position. I want value at whatever pick we use.

I saw a lot of sustained drives throughout the season and at the end of the season. Would i like an upgrade on those two? sure if value is right. But its ridiculous to act like the 4th quarter of the SB is the only game that happenned.

Brunskill will be in mix at RG too. Person could easily get replaced by him.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

I agree. Get value.

But I think you can prioritize just like if there was value at QB, but it would be a little crazy to take a QB at 13 right?

Yes we did see a lot of sustained drives throughout the season, but I wish we could play last season opponents with the exact same players in 2020. I just don't see teams standing pat, doing nothing to address our success and letting us put up 150ypg against them on a regular basis. Kyle has an awesome scheme, but at some point, you're going to need talent to keep up with the arms race. I'm not acting like the 4th quarter of the SB was the only game that happened. I am acting like our division and our conference is getting better not standing pat or becoming worse.

The Rams and Hawks have gotten better?

Brunskill starting at RG could make us better IMO.

If Sanders leaves are the wrs better? I dont see how the O line is unique.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by stefano89:
seems like theres already been alot of action for the OL FA market. and wev had no part of it. i hope thats cause they plan on using the draft heavily for OL. hopefuly go weapon at pick 13 and trade pick 31 for a OG an CB in rd 2. then get another guard in the 4th or 5th. we dont really have a need to draft for anywhere else. ya staleys old but he held his own this season an played well. we can draft for that in another year or two.

I think we were in on Connor McGovern from Denver and the timing of waiting to sign Garland until McGovern agreed to terms with the Jets sort of indicate we really were interested.

ya thats what i meant. that we havent actualyl signed anyone, may have been ineterested but not interested enough to sign. that tells me they must have plans for this position in the draft cause if they didnt theyd do what it takes to sign a FA.

Remains to be seen that a rookie would be better than Person too. I saw enough of Brunskill where I'm confident hed be solid.

Spend high picks on D. Always Walsh philosophy and one I agree with generally

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Remains to be seen that a rookie would be better than Person too. I saw enough of Brunskill where I'm confident hed be solid.

Spend high picks on D. Always Walsh philosophy and one I agree with generally

Um, Walsh produced HOF OL. Long tradition of developing them with the best OL coach in history or buying them.

"... confident he'd be solid."

This mindset, literally, cost us the Superbowl IMHO.

You're looking for JAGs and we're looking for Mike McGlinchey-like cornerstones (high end young talents). Not at every position along the OL, naturally, but at least at both T spots, C and one G position.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Cards have gotten better. Hawks will be, off-season is still early and they have a ton of draft capital and a lot of space. Rams maybe not as much, but I did say our division and the conference.

True Brunskill could make us better at RG but that's if he's better than Person and that remains to be seen... and there's still center.

We were winning games before we acquired Sanders. If we replace Sanders with a pick, it's a modest net gain.

I know others don't see it this way, but I want my OL to be as proficient and talented as our DL. Again our DL isn't talented by accident.

The good news is that I think we're done using 33% of our cap on DL and a bunch of #1 picks. Just need to move that mentality over to the OL now and watch how quickly the narrative changes for Kyle and Garoppolo.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Um, Walsh produced HOF OL. Long tradition of developing them with the best OL coach in history or buying them.

"... confident he'd be solid."

This mindset, literally, cost us the Superbowl IMHO.

You're looking for JAGs and we're looking for Mike McGlinchey-like cornerstones (high end young talents). Not at every position along the OL, naturally, but at least at both T spots, C and one G position.

And people forget, players like Fahnhorst and Cross were 2nd round picks. Barton was a 1st rounder. It wasn't all 6th, 7th and in certain cases 8th round picks on the OL. The legend focuses on the wild success once-in-a-few-generations OL coach McKittrick had with lower round picks and cast-offs, but we did draft well for OL talent during Walsh's years.

They bought a lot of them too...even after. Kevin Gogan, Larry Allen and a host of others.

But yeah, Kyle probably leans more heavily on Benton (like McKittrick) and Kocurek because he knows, they'll get the absolute most out of low capital personnel.

That said, back during McKittrick's era, they had 3-a-days, all summer and could properly develop OL over years reducing that gap between a 1st rounder talent and a raw 5th. The OL all played in pro-style offenses too.

Now? Everyone locks them up and over pays for them because of how hard it is to find them and how long it takes to develop them...hence why I feel we should have been drafting real talent since Kyle first walked in the door (like DL).

Originally posted by NCommand:
Um, Walsh produced HOF OL. Long tradition of developing them with the best OL coach in history or buying them.

"... confident he'd be solid."

This mindset, literally, cost us the Superbowl IMHO.

You're looking for JAGs and we're looking for Mike McGlinchey-like cornerstones (high end young talents). Not at every position along the OL, naturally, but at least at both T spots, C and one G position.

Ridiculous. The O line didn't cost us the SB. But since you can't admit you were wrong with all your doom and gloom stuff last year you now have to reframe the argument to the O line is the reason they lost.

I'm a big Jimmy guy but his play was far more an issue in the SB than the O line play.

Brunskill is just a JAG? Didn't look like one to me. I can see him being a 10 year answer at Guard if he continues to improve. Skule might be a JAG, remains to be seen. Why can't Brunskill be a high end young talent? You think that Jag in Indy that was cut by Seattle is some high end young talent.

But since taking 2 "cornerstone" O line will change everything, how come Atlanta didn't make the playoffs in 2019? I didn't see a Matt Ryan narrative change.

This is the polar opposite extreme of the 9ers have to have a #1 WR. Equally ridiculous.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Um, Walsh produced HOF OL. Long tradition of developing them with the best OL coach in history or buying them.

"... confident he'd be solid."

This mindset, literally, cost us the Superbowl IMHO.

You're looking for JAGs and we're looking for Mike McGlinchey-like cornerstones (high end young talents). Not at every position along the OL, naturally, but at least at both T spots, C and one G position.

And people forget, players like Fahnhorst and Cross were 2nd round picks. Barton was a 1st rounder. It wasn't all 6th, 7th and in certain cases 8th round picks on the OL. The legend focuses on the wild success once-in-a-few-generations OL coach McKittrick had with lower round picks and cast-offs, but we did draft well for OL talent during Walsh's years.

They bought a lot of them too...even after. Kevin Gogan, Larry Allen and a host of others.

But yeah, Kyle probably leans more heavily on Benton (like McKittrick) and Kocurek because he knows, they'll get the absolute most out of low capital personnel.

That said, back during McKittrick's era, they had 3-a-days, all summer and could properly develop OL over years reducing that gap between a 1st rounder talent and a raw 5th. The OL all played in pro-style offenses too.

Now? Everyone locks them up and over pays for them because of how hard it is to find them and how long it takes to develop them...hence why I feel we should have been drafting real talent since Kyle first walked in the door (like DL).

Along with what what you, NY and Hero have been discussing extensively - how the college game reduced further OL development, it now takes years for lineman to become decent pros on average.

And I fully agree with that too. Good ones still come out but where they go, who's coaching them, system fits, who they play next too, etc...all big factors in how quickly they develop.

Ours is probably the most complex esp. given the layers Kyle added last year.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Ridiculous. The O line didn't cost us the SB.

Yeah Chris Jones didn't have any effect on the game. Nor free LB's smashing Garoppolo in the face right up the gut and causing an INT and getting 3 points out of it and possibly, a concussion, quick incompletions, high throws, etc. Those 3 points alone forced us to go for a TD at the end instead of a FG to win.

Meanwhile, KC's OL...talent prevailed.

We told you Kyle can hide and scheme around it and Garoppolo can get rid of the ball at a top rate but eventually, talent will need to stand on it's own and we had very little inside, hence, why 99.9% of fans STILL see IOL as a top need.

I'm not sure how a fan could still possibly not admit that at this point.

We were NOT wrong. At all.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Hot takes on the play of Jimmy Garoppolo or the 49ers defense in the 4th quarter are fool's errands, simply because that sample comprised ~1% of the season. Let's discuss the larger issue: How SF can improve interior pass protection moving forward https://t.co/ePiBi3RY2t

— David Lombardi (@LombardiHimself) February 7, 2020

Did we forget the above already???

I mean, what would it take for a fan to say, "Yeah, you know what...our poor OL might have had an effect on a loss."

Yet if Bourne drops a pass, "OMG, this bum totally cost us a game!"

I mean, TBF, I get it. Fans don't really watch the OL. But by now???