How many players will the 49ers next GM have to replace to fix the roster?

In a fantasy roster I will subtract who I think doesn't make the team minus special team guys filling out the 53.
Here is my list of who needs to be replaced as a starter but can stick around as a sub or rotational guy:

Garnett with Tiller. Until garnett improves his pass pro we have someone better on the bench.
Kilgore - can't trust his health, can stay as a back up.

Celek - should be 3 or 4 TE on roster.

Kap and Gab - keep one as a back up

Patton WR #2 - maybe keep for depth as #4 WR

WR 3 unless it's kerley, kerley stays as the #3 slot guy.

__________________________________

Now for defense:

AA - still isn't there in games, injury, rookie last year whatever, rotation guy until he proves otherwise

Doresy and purcel. Purcel is garbage. Dorsey is an upgrade from purcel but he isn't what we need at NT. Need a NT if we stay in a 3-4.

Brooks and Lynch. Brooks can still play at a high level but takes plays off now. It can be a sign of getting old. Lynch has never got it done. Both can stay as back ups.

2ILBs to hedge against bowman's health and to possibly replace Armstrong. I have hope Armstrong can carve out a spot but injuries to speed guys can change their game.

Bethea - need a rangy SS who can cover.
Reid - I'd rather have reid play SS and have a speed ball hawking type of a FS. Reid can stay as a back up.

I like our secondary even though brock gives too much of a cushion at times. Ward, Brock, Robinson, Johnson, Reiser have a place here.

52

Honestly probably need about 35 new players.

At least 15

Originally posted by ronnie49er:

Detroit's new GM got rid of 26 players while keeping the head coach. They had a franchise QB to help turn things around, not sure if we do or not? But I remember the talking heads saying Stafford was no good and needed to go. The lions were in the same mess and got it straightened out with a new GM and keeping the head coach. The players we have better be saving their money! If we get a new GM heads are going to roll. I'm tired of these dead beats saying we lost but we played hard if you played the best you could and lost by 40 points no GM will want you on his roster!ode ronnie49er

Agreed

at least 40 new players

I think this question is dependent on time frame. I think in one year we will see 7 new starters.

However, in 2 - 3 years I would think more than 26 guys will be on the team that are not today.

7

I think it could be done in 2 years with about 10 quality draft picks because no one hits them all. and about 4-6 FA signings each off season. Looking at 18-22

I can probably name 20 current players that would not belong on the roster of a good team.

All in all, there are 35-40 players worth keeping (including ST, role players, depth players); could keep some veterans like Dorsey & Brooks for depth and spot duty. Some are quality starters and some have really nice potential/upside. Ironically, we have the same exact needs we had when we started 2016...QB, NT, OLB, ILB & ZWR. Until we get premier play making play at these positions, we aren't going anywhere.

So between 15-20 with a BIG emphasis on "impact players" and push-starters/upgrades/true depth.

20-30 over the next two years. At minimum.

We have a bunch of depth players but no impact guys. We need impact at every level. WR,ILB,OLB, Secondary, TEs and RB (at RB I think we need a two headed system). I actually think Buckner will be an impact player but we need a NT too.

Some groups need help more than others but all in all we.need a lot of help in a lot of places. We have no game changers and we used to be stacked with them.

With great moves, smart management and football operational savvy we are at best 2 years away. That's not too bad, but unfortunately we have some of the most pathetic owners in all professional sports.

Originally posted by Stevec9932:
at least 40 new players

This roster isn't going to be fixed for another 3-4 years at least and by then we'll have mostly new players. 35-40 sounds about right.