There are 261 users in the forums
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:A bit off topic but just learned that McGlinchey is already 25!
Seems a bit old to only be going into his second year, no? Saquon and co are all like 3 years younger.
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:
A bit off topic but just learned that McGlinchey is already 25!
Seems a bit old to only be going into his second year, no? Saquon and co are all like 3 years younger.
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:
A bit off topic but just learned that McGlinchey is already 25!
Seems a bit old to only be going into his second year, no? Saquon and co are all like 3 years younger.
Originally posted by thl408:Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:A bit off topic but just learned that McGlinchey is already 25!
Seems a bit old to only be going into his second year, no? Saquon and co are all like 3 years younger.
He's 25, looks 35, acts 15.
Originally posted by NinerGM:Originally posted by NCommand:When this is the group you get to choose from for "talent" it's a pretty safe bet. Haha
LT: Sam Young & Christian DiLauro
LG: Ross Reynolds & Najee Toran
C: Ben Garland, Wesley Johnson & Dillon Day
RG: Joshua Garnett & Willie Beavers
RT: Justin Skule & Daniel Brunskill
If you find even one quality depth player from this group (for more than a year), you'd be feeling good about it. And that's not even counting the "talent" of the starters in Tomlinson, Richburg and Person.
Here's what's key for me NC; it's not just talent because we know depth talent is going to naturally be less than starter talent. Where I'm also concerned is with the timing of acquisitions. We're only searching/acquiring key depth when we have to as if everything was fine previously. From your article above:
"Indeed, not every player on any roster can be an all-pro. The 49ers cannot have a next-man-up mentality if there is no next man. Practice squad linemen do not win championships. There is no time to coach up below-average players with the hope that the starter doesn't get hurt, and if he does, the back-up plays just kind of okay."
This was my response to NY about Garland while we "hope" Richburg's injury doesn't linger. This is this the whole point about urgency you and I talk about all the time; it seems there is no urgency about addressing the OL as a group, not just starters and there's this implied sense that it's "fine" until pen meets paper, there's an injury and then a sloppy, penalty-filled practice game on a national stage. It's almost as if KS is shocked (and angered) by what he sees and it makes you wonder top to bottom (1) who's coaching the group, (2) who is evaluating the group outside the starters, and (3) is the evaluation even reaching the FO. I just get this sense someone is either telling KS/JL everything is good when it might not be because there's no way KS can be upset given what we've seen already from depth unless he's completely unaware.
Originally posted by NinerGM:I think this is a preference in terms of approach and everyone has their preferences. :)
Originally posted by littleken:Originally posted by NinerGM:Originally posted by Hoovtrain:Top 5 most sacked QBs last year consisted of Watson, Prescott, Wilson and Rodgers. Top15 included Rivers, Mahomes and Goff.
Perennial playoff teams/champions like GB and SEA have generally always had poor OLs. It's not ideal, but good teams don't always invest the bulk of their resources into their OL.
Good point. I don't think we're saying this is an absolute. When diving into the data per team (http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/sacks) the magic number seems to be 40 or more sacks. There will be aberrations like Houston, but if I put this stuff on a graph, the less your passer/passing game is disrupted totally correlates to your chances of getting into the playoffs. Similar stuff when you look at QB hits; outliers, but what we consider perennial "good" teams are largely grouped towards the bottom versus the top. And again when we're talking about "investing", a good question is "why?" and "when?" Is a team investing in their starters or in their depth? Are there other strengths that compensate in the organization? Do they have great scouts both for pre-NFL players and pro-personnel guys who can spot and help their coaching staff develop players? Do they have a great coaching staff that can get their guys to execute? Is the team rebuilding or does it have established vets in place?
As far as the Niners are concerned, some of the boxes they check and some they don't which means for me whether they should be investing talent in their OL. Given some key indicators (QB health, hits, redzone effectiveness, boom/bust running game, health, depth, penalties, development) for me, for the 49ers need to (and should have been) prioritizing OL investment similarly to how they've approached DL.
For me, both lines are equally important.
It is perhaps easy to say the team should prioritize this specific position group when not looking at all other position groups.
In my opinion, the team placed high priority in both T spots and C and low priority in G. At the T position, the team think Staley still have 2+ years. They drafted McGlinchey with a top 10 pick. At the C position, the team traded for then pro bowler Jeremy Zuttah. That didn't work out, and then the team signed Weston Richburg.
The questions then is how much priority should the team placed on G.
In my opinion these positions clearly have priority over G
QB
Edge rushers
T
CB
In my opinion it is debatable whether G have priority over these positions. I don't think the team necessarily placed priority on TE over G, it just happened that the team nailed the 5th round pick in George Kittle.
C
RB
WR
DT
Stack LB
FS
SS
TE
slot corner
You then left with these positions. Niners got Gould for cheap and then he turned out very good and worth the new contract he signed. Spent 4th round pick on a P was probably just because the team saw a generational talent for a punter. FB you can argue the team shouldn't have signed Juszczyk.
FB
K
P
I think the debate should be on the middle group. Do you think the team should prioritize G over WR, RB, DT, Stack LB, FS, SS, and slot corner when the team has already placed high priority on T and C.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by littleken:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Top 5 most sacked QBs last year consisted of Watson, Prescott, Wilson and Rodgers. Top15 included Rivers, Mahomes and Goff.
Perennial playoff teams/champions like GB and SEA have generally always had poor OLs. It's not ideal, but good teams don't always invest the bulk of their resources into their OL.
Good point. I don't think we're saying this is an absolute. When diving into the data per team (http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/sacks) the magic number seems to be 40 or more sacks. There will be aberrations like Houston, but if I put this stuff on a graph, the less your passer/passing game is disrupted totally correlates to your chances of getting into the playoffs. Similar stuff when you look at QB hits; outliers, but what we consider perennial "good" teams are largely grouped towards the bottom versus the top. And again when we're talking about "investing", a good question is "why?" and "when?" Is a team investing in their starters or in their depth? Are there other strengths that compensate in the organization? Do they have great scouts both for pre-NFL players and pro-personnel guys who can spot and help their coaching staff develop players? Do they have a great coaching staff that can get their guys to execute? Is the team rebuilding or does it have established vets in place?
As far as the Niners are concerned, some of the boxes they check and some they don't which means for me whether they should be investing talent in their OL. Given some key indicators (QB health, hits, redzone effectiveness, boom/bust running game, health, depth, penalties, development) for me, for the 49ers need to (and should have been) prioritizing OL investment similarly to how they've approached DL.
For me, both lines are equally important.
It is perhaps easy to say the team should prioritize this specific position group when not looking at all other position groups.
In my opinion, the team placed high priority in both T spots and C and low priority in G. At the T position, the team think Staley still have 2+ years. They drafted McGlinchey with a top 10 pick. At the C position, the team traded for then pro bowler Jeremy Zuttah. That didn't work out, and then the team signed Weston Richburg.
The questions then is how much priority should the team placed on G.
In my opinion these positions clearly have priority over G
QB
Edge rushers
T
CB
In my opinion it is debatable whether G have priority over these positions. I don't think the team necessarily placed priority on TE over G, it just happened that the team nailed the 5th round pick in George Kittle.
C
RB
WR
DT
Stack LB
FS
SS
TE
slot corner
You then left with these positions. Niners got Gould for cheap and then he turned out very good and worth the new contract he signed. Spent 4th round pick on a P was probably just because the team saw a generational talent for a punter. FB you can argue the team shouldn't have signed Juszczyk.
FB
K
P
I think the debate should be on the middle group. Do you think the team should prioritize G over WR, RB, DT, Stack LB, FS, SS, and slot corner when the team has already placed high priority on T and C.
Good post. The answer is yes when 1) you realize the role a G plays in the zone scheme 2) the dominant DL you face in the NFCW and 3) when you have a $137M FBQ who got hurt scrambling away from pressure and is coming back from a torn ACL.
In fact, you don't stop there. You stack up on T to train now to replace Staley in two years and young IOL depth as well. If you go youth, unless it's the top OL, expect a couple years of development at least.
Originally posted by littleken:I would think Shanahan knows what he need for offense. So I am okay if he prioritize RB and WR over G. On defense, FS, slot corner, and DT are very important in this defense, so I would prioritize that over G.
So in my opinion, I disagree with you that the team should have prioritize G over RB, WR, DT, FS, and slot corner.
Originally posted by NCommand:
ShanaLynch agree with you too. So no worries! Now, is that plan working? So far, it would be a resounding, no. We'll revisit after the season and check in mid way through and see if this plan was sound.
Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by NinerGM:I think this is a preference in terms of approach and everyone has their preferences. :)
Yeah, most build up the OL and then get their FQB or do it at the same time.
Originally posted by littleken:Originally posted by NCommand:ShanaLynch agree with you too. So no worries! Now, is that plan working? So far, it would be a resounding, no. We'll revisit after the season and check in mid way through and see if this plan was sound.
The injury last year to Jimmy G would be a small sample size. That could have happen on any play. So many factors can changed that, and to pinpoint that to better play from the G would be an over-confident type of argument. As such, to say the plan is not working so far doesn't really bolster your argument.
Sure we can revisit after the season or mid season.
Originally posted by FaTaL:What type of knee surgery did richburg have?
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:But as you well know, they got their FR QB dumped unceremoniously in their laps in middle of 1st season....and maybe, just maybe they weren't quite ready for him yet. My money is on that. They hadn't really built their OL , instead going for ball handlers and D....leaving OL to the last and then FR QB. So altho we got lucky, it really may have screwed up their plan for acquisition