49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by Scoots:
They are spending a lot more money and picks on their OL, and their top paid defensive player has a cap hit of <$6M. They had the gift of a cheap superstar RB to win a ring, but otherwise the 49ers system has been working similarly well (obviously not last year).

It is ALWAYS a compromise.

Now, it would have been really nice to have won while Brock was still cheap, but that's not the world the 49ers are in anymore.

If you want to talk about failed draft picks fine, but that's a different conversation.

Ah this isn't just a this yr cap thing. They've paid DL plenty of money for yrs. They got two highly paid WRs, RB and TE. Just paid a LBer. At one point had one of the highest paid CBs in the league. They ate one of the biggest dead money contracts ever. They've consistently paid OL AND drafted guys to keep the pipeline going.

Acting like SF can't "afford" to pay a center or lineman is BS and simply not true….and YES they have to start paying someone because of the consistent f**k up draft picks or just not drafting a certain position to keep developing talent all together.

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
I mean go look at what Philly is doing, why do they get to work that way and SF can't? They can absolutely add better talent vs the draft and FA and still have star players elsewhere.

Who is philly paying on defense? Nick bosa alone has a higher cap hit this year than the eagles entire front 7 cap hits COMBINED.

You're looking at ONE season. Philly has paid guys like Cox, Graham, Riddick, Darius Slay all while paying both OTs and a center AND taking on the biggest dead money hit ever at one point. Toss in AJ Brown's deal and consistent throwing money around.

Acting like SF can't toss out a couple bucks for one of the cheaper position groups at center is nonsense imo

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
No one questions the O-line coach.......ever

I think he's a damn good OL coach, he's making a bad chicken salad out of chicken s**t. I question his philosophy on not needing real talent to make the OL go.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Scoots:
They are spending a lot more money and picks on their OL, and their top paid defensive player has a cap hit of <$6M. They had the gift of a cheap superstar RB to win a ring, but otherwise the 49ers system has been working similarly well (obviously not last year).

It is ALWAYS a compromise.

Now, it would have been really nice to have won while Brock was still cheap, but that's not the world the 49ers are in anymore.

If you want to talk about failed draft picks fine, but that's a different conversation.

Ah this isn't just a this yr cap thing. They've paid DL plenty of money for yrs. They got two highly paid WRs, RB and TE. Just paid a LBer. At one point had one of the highest paid CBs in the league. They ate one of the biggest dead money contracts ever. They've consistently paid OL AND drafted guys to keep the pipeline going.

Acting like SF can't "afford" to pay a center or lineman is BS and simply not true….and YES they have to start paying someone because of the consistent f**k up draft picks or just not drafting a certain position to keep developing talent all together.

I'm not saying it's impossible for them to pay 3 times as much for the OL, I'm saying it's a compromise that they are choosing not to make.

It would be interesting if McGlinchy or Banks were superstars would they have got another deal or not.

As for the messed up picks I can't argue the Eagles haven't won a lot more on their OL picks.

Colby, Zakelj, Burford are OL picks on the roster apparently not ready to start, Moore left for crazy money. What we learn after this year is if McKivitz goes too ... but if he re-signs for say $15M a year then the team is looking at paying big money to Trent's replacement and Puni in the near future too and suddenly the line isn't cheap.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
No one questions the O-line coach.......ever

I think he's a damn good OL coach, he's making a bad chicken salad out of chicken s**t. I question his philosophy on not needing real talent to make the OL go.

It's not that he doesn't need talent, he's just prioritizing raw OL skills over some of the standard ones. It looks like they are going lighter and more athletic and less size based. Whether it works in the long run or not will be interesting to watch.

I wonder why it's seemed so hard to replace Brendel ... is that Foerster or Shanahan? Over the last few years they have tried literally everyone at center and here we still are. I really hoped Nugent could take it but it's just not being considered at this point. It's odd.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
You're looking at ONE season. Philly has paid guys like Cox, Graham, Riddick, Darius Slay all while paying both OTs and a center AND taking on the biggest dead money hit ever at one point. Toss in AJ Brown's deal and consistent throwing money around.

Acting like SF can't toss out a couple bucks for one of the cheaper position groups at center is nonsense imo

No one is saying that the niners cant throw a bunch of $$ at a given position but to compare it to the eagles is weird.

You're saying they paid Reddick. He had a 3 year, $30m guarantee. And show me a current eagles defensive contract that's blowing up anytime soon. Not sure why you're mentioning "this year". They're currently cheap next year, and the year after, and the year after.

Eventually if their defensive players do well they need to be extended, and they pay more. Then they have less money elsewhere. That's how it works

I don't disagree that I would like a better OL. I do disagree with you saying it has no effect elsewhere. It will

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
No one questions the O-line coach.......ever

I think he's a damn good OL coach, he's making a bad chicken salad out of chicken s**t. I question his philosophy on not needing real talent to make the OL go.

Is he tho? Outside of Puni, who probably would have been good no matter who the coach is, who has he developed? Look at the eagles OL coach. They're turning late round picks and even undrafted guys into pro bowlers. Now that's a damn good coach.

Originally posted by pillageDatazz:
I'm seriously rooting for Colby (starter) and even Moss as a solid backup

And then there's this If healthy and in shape, why not
https://ninerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/niners/2025/08/11/san-francisco-49ers-jon-feliciano-unretire/85608037007/

Conner Colby looked like a bulldozer out there in the run game. I can't believe how good he is for a late round pick and we need it.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
No one questions the O-line coach.......ever

I think he's a damn good OL coach, he's making a bad chicken salad out of chicken s**t. I question his philosophy on not needing real talent to make the OL go.

Is he tho? Outside of Puni, who probably would have been good no matter who the coach is, who has he developed? Look at the eagles OL coach. They're turning late round picks and even undrafted guys into pro bowlers. Now that's a damn good coach.

It's not so much for him "developing" players, but him getting players to play a system they are not familiar with and getting them to work together. He's got a tough job and his players love him. Great players always make coaches look great, and that's not something he gets all that often. He doesn't get credit for Trent of course, but McGlinchy, Banks, Moore, McKivitz seem to have been developed under Foerster.

That said I keep hoping one of the young guys who's been on the roster that hasn't performed takes off, and the closest we've had I guess is McKivitz, where he was on the roster and they let the starter leave and he stepped into the job and succeeded. Nugent, Zakelj, Hennessy, and Pleasants are the current multi-year projects with Moss and Colby the new projects.

Originally posted by Scoots:
I'm not saying it's impossible for them to pay 3 times as much for the OL, I'm saying it's a compromise that they are choosing not to make.

It would be interesting if McGlinchy or Banks were superstars would they have got another deal or not.

As for the messed up picks I can't argue the Eagles haven't won a lot more on their OL picks.

Colby, Zakelj, Burford are OL picks on the roster apparently not ready to start, Moore left for crazy money. What we learn after this year is if McKivitz goes too ... but if he re-signs for say $15M a year then the team is looking at paying big money to Trent's replacement and Puni in the near future too and suddenly the line isn't cheap.

I'm not saying they have to pay 3x what they are doing currently to have success, but how about bringing in some legit starters in the off season for once? Doesn't have to be the #1 FA.

SF has had a plethora of day 2/3 pick and has mostly poo pooped the idea of investing in OL.

look I've been in here debating for yrs that you don't need to spend top dollar or invest every 1st and 2nd pick to get a good OL, but what they consistently do isn't the best way to build a good dependable OL

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
No one questions the O-line coach.......ever

I think he's a damn good OL coach, he's making a bad chicken salad out of chicken s**t. I question his philosophy on not needing real talent to make the OL go.

Is he tho? Outside of Puni, who probably would have been good no matter who the coach is, who has he developed? Look at the eagles OL coach. They're turning late round picks and even undrafted guys into pro bowlers. Now that's a damn good coach.

We've had a bunch of no name guys on the OL for yrs and the OL isn't complete crap. Go look at some of the OLs Forrester has been involved with his whole career. He a well respected OL coach for a reason.

Originally posted by frenchmov:
No one is saying that the niners cant throw a bunch of $$ at a given position but to compare it to the eagles is weird.

You're saying they paid Reddick. He had a 3 year, $30m guarantee. And show me a current eagles defensive contract that's blowing up anytime soon. Not sure why you're mentioning "this year". They're currently cheap next year, and the year after, and the year after.

Eventually if their defensive players do well they need to be extended, and they pay more. Then they have less money elsewhere. That's how it works

I don't disagree that I would like a better OL. I do disagree with you saying it has no effect elsewhere. It will

They're gonna have to pay Carter/Davis/smith sooner than later. They paid Hardgrave and Cox toss in Graham for yrs. They signed Huff just a yr ago… It's not like they haven't always paid their OL when they've had a top paid defense all the same.

they've always had a higher end paid DL along with a highly paid OL. One of the things they lacked at for yrs was LBer and the secondary overall. They went heavy at CB a couple drafts ago.

Philly invests in the trenches yr after yr via the draft. They extend guys as soon as possible and push cash down the road. Go look at how many times they restructured their big contracts…especially with their core guys. It's just smart business and Howie is good at it.

SF can absolutely put more cash in the OL if they really wanted to.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
They're gonna have to pay Carter/Davis/smith sooner than later. They paid Hardgrave and Cox toss in Graham for yrs. They signed Huff just a yr ago… It's not like they haven't always paid their OL when they've had a top paid defense all the same.

they've always had a higher end paid DL along with a highly paid OL. One of the things they lacked at for yrs was LBer and the secondary overall. They went heavy at CB a couple drafts ago.

Philly invests in the trenches yr after yr via the draft. They extend guys as soon as possible and push cash down the road. Go look at how many times they restructured their big contracts…especially with their core guys. It's just smart business and Howie is good at it.

SF can absolutely put more cash in the OL if they really wanted to.

You're listening guys they paid ok money to. We have paid guys like hargrave, bosa, Ford, warner, etc top of market.

And again, regarding OL, I think everyone would agree to spending. My entire point was (for example) bosa earns more this year than the entire eagles front 7. He'll earn more next year than their entire front 7, and the year after that. Show me a time the eagles were paying ONE defensive lineman more than an entire front 7. They haven't.

When we start spending eagles level at OL, we can't afford guys like bosa and warner on paper.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Monsterniner:
No one questions the O-line coach.......ever

I think he's a damn good OL coach, he's making a bad chicken salad out of chicken s**t. I question his philosophy on not needing real talent to make the OL go.

Is he tho? Outside of Puni, who probably would have been good no matter who the coach is, who has he developed? Look at the eagles OL coach. They're turning late round picks and even undrafted guys into pro bowlers. Now that's a damn good coach.

We've had a bunch of no name guys on the OL for yrs and the OL isn't complete crap. Go look at some of the OLs Forrester has been involved with his whole career. He a well respected OL coach for a reason.

The question remains unanswered: who has he developed in SF to become more than a mediocre OL player?

It's been a while since Foerster was considered a great coach.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Scoots:
I'm not saying it's impossible for them to pay 3 times as much for the OL, I'm saying it's a compromise that they are choosing not to make.

It would be interesting if McGlinchy or Banks were superstars would they have got another deal or not.

As for the messed up picks I can't argue the Eagles haven't won a lot more on their OL picks.

Colby, Zakelj, Burford are OL picks on the roster apparently not ready to start, Moore left for crazy money. What we learn after this year is if McKivitz goes too ... but if he re-signs for say $15M a year then the team is looking at paying big money to Trent's replacement and Puni in the near future too and suddenly the line isn't cheap.

I'm not saying they have to pay 3x what they are doing currently to have success, but how about bringing in some legit starters in the off season for once? Doesn't have to be the #1 FA.

SF has had a plethora of day 2/3 pick and has mostly poo pooped the idea of investing in OL.

look I've been in here debating for yrs that you don't need to spend top dollar or invest every 1st and 2nd pick to get a good OL, but what they consistently do isn't the best way to build a good dependable OL

The problem of pointing to other teams and their having a priority on the line is that spending big on picks and players on the line doesn't necessarily correlate to winning more (QB has the closest connection to winning and spending). The Panthers are approaching $100M total for their OL and haven't had a winning season since 2017 ... clearly in their case spending big to develop the line hasn't correlated to winning a lot of games.

I assume (or choose to believe Lynchahan) that if an elite OL that fits what they want for that position falls to the 49ers in the first 3 rounds they will take them, but if not they are not going to push the issue in the early rounds.

I think the Eagles have only spent a little more early picks on OL since Lynchahan took over the 49ers ... it's just they have been more successful with their picks early and late on the OL. But that's a different problem from whether the 49ers "ignore" the line or not.