There are 139 users in the forums

49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by FaTaL:
What type of knee surgery did richburg have?

Quad and knee. No specifics beyond that. Kyle called it "Significant."
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

Fair. But then they did nothing this off season while addressing other areas like special teams.
[ Edited by pasodoc9er on Aug 15, 2019 at 8:55 AM ]
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.

This incorporates my response here too, but there's just one thing I think is often repeated around here in one way or another:

At the T position, the team think Staley still have 2+ years. They drafted McGlinchey with a top 10 pick.

For me, replacing a player in a position of loss because you literally didn't have another other option, is not prioritization for me, that's necessity. The 49ers *had* to draft high for an OT because they weren't going to sign Brown and they had a OG playing out of position at OT. It's just that I don't think the team has a clear prioritization strategy outside of QB, rather it seems like there are folks in the room with preferences and the loudest most influential voice(s) is/are winning the day.

Here's an example, someone on the team clearly loves DE/DT. We have a s**t ton of good ones. In terms of collective talent/depth, we're just good at finding guys in this area, more so than any other team in the NFC West. We cut a starter because we had confidence in the depth on the DL. When was the last time we could say that about any other position on the team? Why is that? Because draft after draft and even in FA, that's been a priority. Not Edge, not CB, not WR, not OL. I'm not at all surprised we're crazy strong at DT - so much so that even if Thomas busts out, it really won't affect the DL rotation's effectiveness in the least. That's a monumental statement! Even if our #3 overall doesn't pan out, we're still OK.

Compare that to any other position - now recently we've shifted focus to Edge, still the defensive line. I very much expect our DL and defensive play overall to be better.

The question is has the team prioritized C. I don't really think they have. Richburg was a great signing but the team knew at the end of last year and early 2019 there was a very real possibility Richburg wouldn't be ready by week 1, essentially further weakening an area of weakness, interior line. Regardless of how effective you are at tackle, if the interior is crazy weak, won't defenses take the shortest route to the QB right up the middle? Further, we've seen two complete seasons - even when JG was playing - of him getting creamed by opposing linemen. It's just hard to accept that there will be improvement with a player at center whose never started at that position before, while we wait for Richburg and Tomlinson and Person are suddenly going to become great guards.

I can only do what the team has deemed is the strategy for the OL: hope.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/center/

So which of those guys wouldve been an adequate prioritizing of o line until Richburg got back?
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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.

This incorporates my response here too, but there's just one thing I think is often repeated around here in one way or another:

At the T position, the team think Staley still have 2+ years. They drafted McGlinchey with a top 10 pick.

For me, replacing a player in a position of loss because you literally didn't have another other option, is not prioritization for me, that's necessity. The 49ers *had* to draft high for an OT because they weren't going to sign Brown and they had a OG playing out of position at OT. It's just that I don't think the team has a clear prioritization strategy outside of QB, rather it seems like there are folks in the room with preferences and the loudest most influential voice(s) is/are winning the day.

Here's an example, someone on the team clearly loves DE/DT. We have a s**t ton of good ones. In terms of collective talent/depth, we're just good at finding guys in this area, more so than any other team in the NFC West. We cut a starter because we had confidence in the depth on the DL. When was the last time we could say that about any other position on the team? Why is that? Because draft after draft and even in FA, that's been a priority. Not Edge, not CB, not WR, not OL. I'm not at all surprised we're crazy strong at DT - so much so that even if Thomas busts out, it really won't affect the DL rotation's effectiveness in the least. That's a monumental statement! Even if our #3 overall doesn't pan out, we're still OK.

Compare that to any other position - now recently we've shifted focus to Edge, still the defensive line. I very much expect our DL and defensive play overall to be better.

The question is has the team prioritized C. I don't really think they have. Richburg was a great signing but the team knew at the end of last year and early 2019 there was a very real possibility Richburg wouldn't be ready by week 1, essentially further weakening an area of weakness, interior line. Regardless of how effective you are at tackle, if the interior is crazy weak, won't defenses take the shortest route to the QB right up the middle? Further, we've seen two complete seasons - even when JG was playing - of him getting creamed by opposing linemen. It's just hard to accept that there will be improvement with a player at center whose never started at that position before, while we wait for Richburg and Tomlinson and Person are suddenly going to become great guards.

I can only do what the team has deemed is the strategy for the OL: hope.

I think there is a difference between priority and what is available. Shanahan and Lynch signed six year contract, so they think long term. They weren't prioritized to win in year 1 and 2 over the team's long term success. As such, although they knew edge rush was a priority, 2017 and 2018 draft and FA simply had no good options. The team missed out on Miles Garret in 2017, but with the team being a mess at that time it wasn't wise to trade up to grab him. With hindsight that might not be that bad of a choice, but hindsight is 50/50 and we shouldn't go there.
2019 draft provide plenty of good edge rush prospects and the team drafted Nick Bosa. Had the team missed out on Nick Bosa the team would have plenty of opportunities to draft a good edge rusher prospect in the first 2 rounds.

In brief, there is a balance between draft for need vs draft the best player. The same can be said in the FA and trade market. As such, I would disagree that the team has no clear prioritization strategy outside of QB. The team has preference, but the FA/trade/draft market sometimes isn't ideal.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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.

This incorporates my response here too, but there's just one thing I think is often repeated around here in one way or another:


At the T position, the team think Staley still have 2+ years. They drafted McGlinchey with a top 10 pick.

For me, replacing a player in a position of loss because you literally didn't have another other option, is not prioritization for me, that's necessity. The 49ers *had* to draft high for an OT because they weren't going to sign Brown and they had a OG playing out of position at OT. It's just that I don't think the team has a clear prioritization strategy outside of QB, rather it seems like there are folks in the room with preferences and the loudest most influential voice(s) is/are winning the day.

Here's an example, someone on the team clearly loves DE/DT. We have a s**t ton of good ones. In terms of collective talent/depth, we're just good at finding guys in this area, more so than any other team in the NFC West. We cut a starter because we had confidence in the depth on the DL. When was the last time we could say that about any other position on the team? Why is that? Because draft after draft and even in FA, that's been a priority. Not Edge, not CB, not WR, not OL. I'm not at all surprised we're crazy strong at DT - so much so that even if Thomas busts out, it really won't affect the DL rotation's effectiveness in the least. That's a monumental statement! Even if our #3 overall doesn't pan out, we're still OK.

Compare that to any other position - now recently we've shifted focus to Edge, still the defensive line. I very much expect our DL and defensive play overall to be better.

The question is has the team prioritized C. I don't really think they have. Richburg was a great signing but the team knew at the end of last year and early 2019 there was a very real possibility Richburg wouldn't be ready by week 1, essentially further weakening an area of weakness, interior line. Regardless of how effective you are at tackle, if the interior is crazy weak, won't defenses take the shortest route to the QB right up the middle? Further, we've seen two complete seasons - even when JG was playing - of him getting creamed by opposing linemen. It's just hard to accept that there will be improvement with a player at center whose never started at that position before, while we wait for Richburg and Tomlinson and Person are suddenly going to become great guards.

I can only do what the team has deemed is the strategy for the OL: hope.

Originally posted by littleken:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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.

This incorporates my response here too, but there's just one thing I think is often repeated around here in one way or another:

At the T position, the team think Staley still have 2+ years. They drafted McGlinchey with a top 10 pick.

For me, replacing a player in a position of loss because you literally didn't have another other option, is not prioritization for me, that's necessity. The 49ers *had* to draft high for an OT because they weren't going to sign Brown and they had a OG playing out of position at OT. It's just that I don't think the team has a clear prioritization strategy outside of QB, rather it seems like there are folks in the room with preferences and the loudest most influential voice(s) is/are winning the day.

Here's an example, someone on the team clearly loves DE/DT. We have a s**t ton of good ones. In terms of collective talent/depth, we're just good at finding guys in this area, more so than any other team in the NFC West. We cut a starter because we had confidence in the depth on the DL. When was the last time we could say that about any other position on the team? Why is that? Because draft after draft and even in FA, that's been a priority. Not Edge, not CB, not WR, not OL. I'm not at all surprised we're crazy strong at DT - so much so that even if Thomas busts out, it really won't affect the DL rotation's effectiveness in the least. That's a monumental statement! Even if our #3 overall doesn't pan out, we're still OK.

Compare that to any other position - now recently we've shifted focus to Edge, still the defensive line. I very much expect our DL and defensive play overall to be better.

The question is has the team prioritized C. I don't really think they have. Richburg was a great signing but the team knew at the end of last year and early 2019 there was a very real possibility Richburg wouldn't be ready by week 1, essentially further weakening an area of weakness, interior line. Regardless of how effective you are at tackle, if the interior is crazy weak, won't defenses take the shortest route to the QB right up the middle? Further, we've seen two complete seasons - even when JG was playing - of him getting creamed by opposing linemen. It's just hard to accept that there will be improvement with a player at center whose never started at that position before, while we wait for Richburg and Tomlinson and Person are suddenly going to become great guards.

I can only do what the team has deemed is the strategy for the OL: hope.

I think there is a difference between priority and what is available. Shanahan and Lynch signed six year contract, so they think long term. They weren't prioritized to win in year 1 and 2 over the team's long term success. As such, although they knew edge rush was a priority, 2017 and 2018 draft and FA simply had no good options. The team missed out on Miles Garret in 2017, but with the team being a mess at that time it wasn't wise to trade up to grab him. With hindsight that might not be that bad of a choice, but hindsight is 50/50 and we shouldn't go there.
2019 draft provide plenty of good edge rush prospects and the team drafted Nick Bosa. Had the team missed out on Nick Bosa the team would have plenty of opportunities to draft a good edge rusher prospect in the first 2 rounds.

In brief, there is a balance between draft for need vs draft the best player. The same can be said in the FA and trade market. As such, I would disagree that the team has no clear prioritization strategy outside of QB. The team has preference, but the FA/trade/draft market sometimes isn't ideal.

But that's just it about the long-term, each year you don't improve a section of the team, particularly a critical section, the possibility for wins decrease. If, as John has said they want to build through the draft, it's rare that all of your picks are going to develop in the year you draft them, so that means at minimum a 2-year cycle in which you need to wait until picks realize their full potential. So in a 5-year contract, your picks and players you should have mostly in place by year three are the core of your team for potentially winning by year 5. I disagree that one needs the top picks in a draft only as options to build successfully. The talent on the DL is a pretty strong example of that. Further, do we make the case that something wasn't available because we didn't do it or because we know it wasn't available? Again, there's a different approach when drafting starters versus finding depth. I'm not asking the 49ers to find blue-chip, 1st rounders at every position. Do we say "because a first-round OL talent wasn't available, let's wait until next year?"

And here I agree there's a dearth of availability for starting talent. I don't think that's the argument at all NC and I are making.

Insurance. Depth. Development.

Matt Tobin made the 53. It's just so hard for the brain to accept he was the best player available at that position we could find. When looking for depth and trying to sure up weaknesses either temporarily or long-term, insurance prioritization for those key position where starters might not even be available for week 1 should without question IMHO, be a priority before you're made to make a choice.

Ben Garland was available last year. I think the element of timing is missed in a lot of discussions when people talk about available options. All the guys we've acquired this year were available for trade last year; just look at where they were on their former team's depth chart.

You can make that case for many of the players we brought in this year. Again it's prioritization. We thought we could wait. Don't get me wrong, I trust Kyle but if this season is lost because the starting 5 misses any time due to injury people shouldn't be shocked. Sure, we can address the OL this coming off-season, but by then the pressure will be even greater. It just seems a bit unnecessary.

littleken I really appreciate the discussion man!
[ Edited by NinerGM on Aug 14, 2019 at 4:54 PM ]
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/center/

So which of those guys wouldve been an adequate prioritizing of o line until Richburg got back?

How about the draft? We could've landed some decent help in the 4th or even 3rd.
How can you not see you OL as a need based on last year and injuries and age????

Now your right not many options.
Member Milestone: This is post number 200 for 24karat49er.
Originally posted by OldJoe:
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/center/

So which of those guys wouldve been an adequate prioritizing of o line until Richburg got back?

How about the draft? We could've landed some decent help in the 4th or even 3rd.
How can you not see you OL as a need based on last year and injuries and age????

Now your right not many options.
Trade for Schreff or Trent Williams from the redskins. I know they say Snyder hates Shanny but what if Lynch does the talkin. Or what about uncle Bill in NE does he have any well coached back ups who our front office can trade for?
Originally posted by NinerGM:
But that's just it about the long-term, each year you don't improve a section of the team, particularly a critical section, the possibility for wins decrease. If, as John has said they want to build through the draft, it's rare that all of your picks are going to develop in the year you draft them, so that means at minimum a 2-year cycle in which you need to wait until picks realize their full potential. So in a 5-year contract, your picks and players you should have mostly in place by year three are the core of your team for potentially winning by year 5. I disagree that one needs the top picks in a draft only as options to build successfully. The talent on the DL is a pretty strong example of that. Further, do we make the case that something wasn't available because we didn't do it or because we know it wasn't available? Again, there's a different approach when drafting starters versus finding depth. I'm not asking the 49ers to find blue-chip, 1st rounders at every position. Do we say "because a first-round OL talent wasn't available, let's wait until next year?"

And here I agree there's a dearth of availability for starting talent. I don't think that's the argument at all NC and I are making.

Insurance. Depth. Development.

Matt Tobin made the 53. It's just so hard for the brain to accept he was the best player available at that position we could find. When looking for depth and trying to sure up weaknesses either temporarily or long-term, insurance prioritization for those key position where starters might not even be available for week 1 should without question IMHO, be a priority before you're made to make a choice.

Ben Garland was available last year. I think the element of timing is missed in a lot of discussions when people talk about available options. All the guys we've acquired this year were available for trade last year; just look at where they were on their former team's depth chart.

You can make that case for many of the players we brought in this year. Again it's prioritization. We thought we could wait. Don't get me wrong, I trust Kyle but if this season is lost because the starting 5 misses any time due to injury people shouldn't be shocked. Sure, we can address the OL this coming off-season, but by then the pressure will be even greater. It just seems a bit unnecessary.

littleken I really appreciate the discussion man!

I enjoy our discussion with you and NC.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
But as you well know, they got their FR QB dumped unceremoniously in their laps in middle of 2nd 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

Fair. But then they did nothing this off season while addressing other areas like special teams.


This is awhile back now but my recollection is once we traded for JimmyG, it was like Alice in Wonderland....it was like time stood still, everything was fine...great, actually, as we had our FR QB...and i wonder at this late date if once we got JG, if it didn't kind of stun both Kyle and JL as to what to do...that is, what do we do next? We got our FR QB, and our well thot out plan of stepwise building was suddenly out of whack...no longer part of their well orchestrated plan. Maybe it seemed like we were all in a daze. It was surreal. We got our FR QB!!!.

But JG was not part of their plan. Whether we were getting an OL first or at the same time we got out FR QB, that was now out the window. There was a bump in the road. The kind of bump where you stop your car, look for any damage done and find a $50 gold piece worth $1500. It was like that. Whatever kyles and john's plan were, we deviated big time from it overnite. We had just gotten the one most difficult of all the pieces.... not only that, hand picked, hand taught by the greatest current HC, BB, and then tutored up close and personal for 3 1/2 yrs by the greatest QB in the last 15 yrs. We were rich. Rich beyond our dreams. JL/KS? They suddenly had to rearrange their plans for building the team and they had to do it quick.

Maybe it was at that point that the decision to go DL & LBs plus ballhandlers on the O was set in place. Hey , maybe they just kept with their former plan, except....they already had the 1 hardest piece. ..FR QB. 'Would we have gotten an OL at least started before we got our FR QB? We'll never know, but i bet so. So things got out of sync, and next thing you know we are heavy into WRs, the last two yrs...yes we got a C, a stellar OT to go with Joe, and it seemed there was no real emphasis put on getting great OGs. So we traded and FAed and ended up with Person and Laken last yr , Joe and McG at OTs, and basically backups at OGs who were starting.

There was opportunity to get that starting OG this yr but with only 3 starters for OG, one , Risner was there when our rd 2 pick came up. We went Debo. After that all OGs were just backups and there was no point in drafting backups...when we obviously needed starters. DBs remained a huge problem, but we had one helluva front 7. So in rd 3 we had a starter DB there, but instead took Hurd. Both picks could ahve gone the other way, but it would have been nice to know what kyle and john were thinking. Obviously they went with ball handlers, and in this case , 2 guys, OWs, who could line up at WR, RB, or TE.

No question what kyles plan was....ball handlers all the way. We would manage with the OL we had, even tho it now looks like Richburg may not be any healthier this yr than last, meaning we need OG'/C/OG starters...to protect a QB who tore his ACL last yr, game 3.

After having seen tape of both WRs, plus WISH, our F. O did the right thing. But would we have managed the acquisition of WRs over OGs differently if we had not gotten JimmyG in the middle of yr 1 for new regime? We'll never know, but i wonder if things would not have been done differently if it hadn't been for the sudden appearance of the best qB we could have ever hoped for in middle of kyle's First season here.

We'll never know but we do know we got 4 super studs in Nicky B, Debo, Hurd, and WISH. No regrets. But now.....now we have to put special emphasis on getting starter OGs (or at least one) and , sad to say, starter Center. Kyle and JL did try there. Just bad luck.

In a nutshell that summarizes how i absorbed the last 2 yrs and some. Incredible start, we got our FR QB, but we haven't protected him. Like most others I hope it works. But we will need some luck to do that. Of course, a starter OG and or C....would sure be nice.
Originally posted by littleken:

In brief, there is a balance between draft for need vs draft the best player. The same can be said in the FA and trade market. As such, I would disagree that the team has no clear prioritization strategy outside of QB. The team has preference, but the FA/trade/draft market sometimes isn't ideal.

I think they do have a blueprint, assign values to positions, and constantly track their depth.
IMO their weakness has been in development. Seems like coaching is being patient, which is understandable if the scheme isn't easy to pick up. But, I think they could inject more competition. Quickly (or more quickly) identify the players that can't hack it and invest training time to another able body. Despite his faults, I thought the internal competition is the best thing Harbaugh brought to the org. I'm surprised Lynch hasn't pushed for more of that attitude.
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
This is awhile back now but my recollection is once we traded for JimmyG, it was like Alice in Wonderland....it was like time stood still, everything was fine...great, actually, as we had our FR QB...and i wonder at this late date if once we got JG, if it didn't kind of stun both Kyle and JL as to what to do...that is, what do we do next? We got our FR QB, and our well thot out plan of stepwise building was suddenly out of whack...no longer part of their well orchestrated plan. Maybe it seemed like we were all in a daze. It was surreal. We got our FR QB!!!.

But JG was not part of their plan. Whether we were getting an OL first or at the same time we got out FR QB, that was now out the window. There was a bump in the road. The kind of bump where you stop your car, look for any damage done and find a $50 gold piece worth $1500. It was like that. Whatever kyles and john's plan were, we deviated big time from it overnite. We had just gotten the one most difficult of all the pieces.... not only that, hand picked, hand taught by the greatest current HC, BB, and then tutored up close and personal for 3 1/2 yrs by the greatest QB in the last 15 yrs. We were rich. Rich beyond our dreams. JL/KS? They suddenly had to rearrange their plans for building the team and they had to do it quick.

Maybe it was at that point that the decision to go DL & LBs plus ballhandlers on the O was set in place. Hey , maybe they just kept with their former plan, except....they already had the 1 hardest piece. ..FR QB. 'Would we have gotten an OL at least started before we got our FR QB? We'll never know, but i bet so. So things got out of sync, and next thing you know we are heavy into WRs, the last two yrs...yes we got a C, a stellar OT to go with Joe, and it seemed there was no real emphasis put on getting great OGs. So we traded and FAed and ended up with Person and Laken last yr , Joe and McG at OTs, and basically backups at OGs who were starting.

There was opportunity to get that starting OG this yr but with only 3 starters for OG, one , Risner was there when our rd 2 pick came up. We went Debo. After that all OGs were just backups and there was no point in drafting backups...when we obviously needed starters. DBs remained a huge problem, but we had one helluva front 7. So in rd 3 we had a starter DB there, but instead took Hurd. Both picks could ahve gone the other way, but it would have been nice to know what kyle and john were thinking. Obviously they went with ball handlers, and in this case , 2 guys, OWs, who could line up at WR, RB, or TE.

No question what kyles plan was....ball handlers all the way. We would manage with the OL we had, even tho it now looks like Richburg may not be any healthier this yr than last, meaning we need OG'/C/OG starters...to protect a QB who tore his ACL last yr, game 3.

After having seen tape of both WRs, plus WISH, our F. O did the right thing. But would we have managed the acquisition of WRs over OGs differently if we had not gotten JimmyG in the middle of yr 1 for new regime? We'll never know, but i wonder if things would not have been done differently if it hadn't been for the sudden appearance of the best qB we could have ever hoped for in middle of kyle's First season here.

We'll never know but we do know we got 4 super studs in Nicky B, Debo, Hurd, and WISH. No regrets. But now.....now we have to put special emphasis on getting starter OGs (or at least one) and , sad to say, starter Center. Kyle and JL did try there. Just bad luck.

In a nutshell that summarizes how i absorbed the last 2 yrs and some. Incredible start, we got our FR QB, but we haven't protected him. Like most others I hope it works. But we will need some luck to do that. Of course, a starter OG and or C....would sure be nice.

Good post and I agree. JG was not part of the plan, but where I do give credit to Lynch is having the balls to ask Hoodie if Brady was available for trade.

I feel like what we're witnessing in real-time, much like what we witnessed last season in real-time with Kyle and WRs, is that you need stronger competition and talent because injuries, age, and just the unknown will significantly reduce the number of available effective players for the team. We're seeing the results of the team placing a priority on WR in both FA and the draft. Even though Taylor, normally a starter, won't be available for the first couple of games, we look like we'll be able the weather that loss with who we have. We cannot say the same for the OL.
Originally posted by littleken:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
But that's just it about the long-term, each year you don't improve a section of the team, particularly a critical section, the possibility for wins decrease. If, as John has said they want to build through the draft, it's rare that all of your picks are going to develop in the year you draft them, so that means at minimum a 2-year cycle in which you need to wait until picks realize their full potential. So in a 5-year contract, your picks and players you should have mostly in place by year three are the core of your team for potentially winning by year 5. I disagree that one needs the top picks in a draft only as options to build successfully. The talent on the DL is a pretty strong example of that. Further, do we make the case that something wasn't available because we didn't do it or because we know it wasn't available? Again, there's a different approach when drafting starters versus finding depth. I'm not asking the 49ers to find blue-chip, 1st rounders at every position. Do we say "because a first-round OL talent wasn't available, let's wait until next year?"

And here I agree there's a dearth of availability for starting talent. I don't think that's the argument at all NC and I are making.

Insurance. Depth. Development.

Matt Tobin made the 53. It's just so hard for the brain to accept he was the best player available at that position we could find. When looking for depth and trying to sure up weaknesses either temporarily or long-term, insurance prioritization for those key position where starters might not even be available for week 1 should without question IMHO, be a priority before you're made to make a choice.

Ben Garland was available last year. I think the element of timing is missed in a lot of discussions when people talk about available options. All the guys we've acquired this year were available for trade last year; just look at where they were on their former team's depth chart.

You can make that case for many of the players we brought in this year. Again it's prioritization. We thought we could wait. Don't get me wrong, I trust Kyle but if this season is lost because the starting 5 misses any time due to injury people shouldn't be shocked. Sure, we can address the OL this coming off-season, but by then the pressure will be even greater. It just seems a bit unnecessary.

littleken I really appreciate the discussion man!

I enjoy our discussion with you and NC.

What exactly is the update on Richburg? Maybe week 1, but no one knows?
Share 49erswebzone