Weston Richburg (retired)

FWIW I'm all for spending a bunch of day 3 picks on lineman like the Rams did...I feel like some in here would be triggered over that though lol

Originally posted by NYniner85:

FWIW I'm all for spending a bunch of day 3 picks on lineman like the Rams did...I feel like some in here would be triggered over that though lol

That's what I am finding so amusing about this. Suddenly the Rams philosophy is the benchmark because the same dog s**t OL from last year is playing better because they got back to running the ball more effectively and scaled back the passing. They are playing better, but to act like they did some rebuild and invested all these resources into the OL and that's why they are seeing this turnaround is laughable

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Debunks?

What you didn't include from your 49er ledger:

McG isn't panning out. (hailed as a RB RT not someone who's great with passblocking)
Richburg isn't panning out. (projected as a perennial pro-bowl player)
Brunskill learning 2 new positions is panning out? Maybe (projected as a OT, but playing OG replacing underwhelming Mike Person)
49ers get credit for Williams but let's be real, Staley was leaving so I'd say net-neutral and if the team was projecting Coleman or Skule to start at LT we have a bigger issue.

Without a projected "pro-bowl caliber" Richburg primarily, this OL is beyond subpar. No spin. No BS.
Where's the development bench for the 49ers at OC? Grasu? Skule? McKivitz? 2 picks at the end of day 3 vs two 3rds, 1 4th and a 5th.

But I hear you bro, another passive season when it comes to upgrading the OL with some hope and prayers our QB situation becomes HOF/Elite. Nothing to see here despite not having starting center - which the Rams have, as for many playoff bound teams. The last time we had an effective center was maybe last November-ish? But nothing to see here. Let's double down on our current passive OL investment plan

Bottomline. Les wasn't BSing. We've not done the same. It's not remotely close to a "debunking" however I respect your opinion.

There is nothing to add to the niner ledger. You said the should follow the Rams game plan of investing in the OL and I showed you that they have followed almost the exact same plan. What are you seeing different here?

Hoov we like literally did not follow the exact same plan - draft picks alone it's not remotely the same.

Explain please? You conveniently leave out a top 10
Pick on OL when you keep touting the Rams mid round picks. And as you said about the niners not cutting it, newsflash neither our the Rams with these mid picks. None can even get into the starting lineup outside of 1. So basically you are nitpicking the difference between the Rams using 1 more mid round pick on an OL. Does trading a 3rd and a 5th for Trent Williams factor into the equation? The philosophy or the same, you guys just aren't pleased with the results, weren't last year either when the Niner OL was doing a lot of what the Rams OL is doing this year

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
That's what I am finding so amusing about this. Suddenly the Rams philosophy is the benchmark because the same dog s**t OL from last year is playing better because they got back to running the ball more effectively and scaled back the passing. They are playing better, but to act like they did some rebuild and invested all these resources into the OL and that's why they are seeing this turnaround is laughable

There ar elike 5 teams int he NFL that have invested more into the OL than the 9ers. The ignorance of how bad O LINe play around the league is consistently is staggering. Command brings up New Orleans all the time and yet if you look at them their entire backup OL group are undrafted guys. Basically they invested in 5 starters and have nothing beyond that. Same is true for most teams. There just isn't a lot of talent to go around.

If McGlinchey was playing at a respectable level like he should be this is a different conversation right now.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

FWIW I'm all for spending a bunch of day 3 picks on lineman like the Rams did...I feel like some in here would be triggered over that though lol

That's what I am finding so amusing about this. Suddenly the Rams philosophy is the benchmark because the same dog s**t OL from last year is playing better because they got back to running the ball more effectively and scaled back the passing. They are playing better, but to act like they did some rebuild and invested all these resources into the OL and that's why they are seeing this turnaround is laughable

If investing year over year for the OL (which is something we've been literally asking for like every year since Baalke) with quality picks beyond end of day 3 and a bunch of UDFA, cast-offs, etc., developing them and seeing them perform/play and deliver wins is "benchmark" then yes, I'll vote for that philosophy every time. And that same dogs**t OL the Rams had from last year had to take its lumps like ours did in 2018 seems different when the key piece to our OL can't even get on the field because of yet another season-impacting injury.

At least the Rams OL is, well, available.

Ah got it. It's investing when the Rams sit back do nothing outside adding a few mid round picks over the course of 4 years that can't crack the starting lineup because they let their best G walk. Got it.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
You just mentioned 1 of the 3 cracked the starting line up right? Of the investments we've made outside of Williams and Tomlinson who were FA acquisitions, one replacing our best player on the OL was a net neutral. At least the Rams have a bench to develop.

We haven't had a good starting center for two seasons and an available one for a season and a half and that matters a lot to both the Rams and 49ers scheme.

Rams have an UDFA and a 5th starting for them on their interior. Hoov point stands. Austin Blythe was allowed to develop yet somehow McKivitz and Brunskill are given up on already as never going to be anything. Quite convenient.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

FWIW I'm all for spending a bunch of day 3 picks on lineman like the Rams did...I feel like some in here would be triggered over that though lol

That's what I am finding so amusing about this. Suddenly the Rams philosophy is the benchmark because the same dog s**t OL from last year is playing better because they got back to running the ball more effectively and scaled back the passing. They are playing better, but to act like they did some rebuild and invested all these resources into the OL and that's why they are seeing this turnaround is laughable

If investing year over year for the OL (which is something we've been literally asking for like every year since Baalke) with quality picks beyond end of day 3 and a bunch of UDFA, cast-offs, etc., developing them and seeing them perform/play and deliver wins is "benchmark" then yes, I'll vote for that philosophy every time. And that same dogs**t OL the Rams had from last year had to take its lumps like ours did in 2018 seems different when the key piece to our OL can't even get on the field because of yet another season-impacting injury.

At least the Rams OL is, well, available.

Ah got it. It's investing when the Rams sit back do nothing outside adding a few mid round picks over the course of 4 years that can't crack the starting lineup because they let their best G walk. Got it.

You just mentioned 1 of the 3 cracked the starting line up right? Of the investments we've made outside of Williams and Tomlinson who were FA acquisitions, one replacing our best player on the OL was a net neutral. At least the Rams have a bench to develop.

We haven't had a good starting center for two seasons and an available one for a season and a half and that matters a lot to both the Rams and 49ers scheme.

1 out of 4 mid rounders in 4 years.
They were not FAs, they were trades that required ....get this....mid round picks to acquire them. And Williams for Staley is hardly a net neutral. And you keep conveniently leaving out the high end investment of a top 10 pick who is their starting RT. Yeah sucks Richburg is always injured, but who came in off the bench to help the team down the stretch run to the SB? A FA the niners signed. And wait for it...,who stepped in last year when both OTs went down for a large part of the season..,,that's right, 2 rookies they brought in. Who stepped in when the starting RG went down during the stretch run? That's right one of the same guys lol

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Explain please? You conveniently leave out a top 10
Pick on OL when you keep touting the Rams mid round picks. And as you said about the niners not cutting it, newsflash neither our the Rams with these mid picks. None can even get into the starting lineup outside of 1. So basically you are nitpicking the difference between the Rams using 1 more mid round pick on an OL. Does trading a 3rd and a 5th for Trent Williams factor into the equation? The philosophy or the same, you guys just aren't pleased with the results, weren't last year either when the Niner OL was doing a lot of what the Rams OL is doing this year

The philosophy isn't the same or we would be talking about players to develop, particularly at center. And I'm willing to be the picks that can't crack the starting lineup for the Rams will send Grasu, Skule, and McKivitz to the practice squad.

So basically you're saying don't invest in the OL. It's all okay and we're all crazy to think the OL should be improved while we consider a rook as a replacement because Jimmy sucks?

Not at all. I, and others, are just pointing out how flawed your guys logic is trying to use the Rams as the benchmark lol. And that the overall problem is the current performance, not the philosophy. Trying to thrown in Grasu is disingenuous since he was brought last second when they were down their top 3 C's in TC. Who's playing and developing at C now?

Blythe Edwards and Noteboom were awful last year but now suddenly a year later they are great and it shows how the Rams have invested. McKivitz and Brunskill however are never gonna be guys and must be replaced.

But hey Austin Blythe is a FA. Get on it John Lynch.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

FWIW I'm all for spending a bunch of day 3 picks on lineman like the Rams did...I feel like some in here would be triggered over that though lol

2 3rds is day 3?

I mean basically with the 97th and 89th picks lol.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

If investing year over year for the OL (which is something we've been literally asking for like every year since Baalke) with quality picks beyond end of day 3 and a bunch of UDFA, cast-offs, etc., developing them and seeing them perform/play and deliver wins is "benchmark" then yes, I'll vote for that philosophy every time. And that same dogs**t OL the Rams had from last year had to take its lumps like ours did in 2018 seems different when the key piece to our OL can't even get on the field because of yet another season-impacting injury.

At least the Rams OL is, well, available.

2 yrs? I mean they invested zero this past season.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

FWIW I'm all for spending a bunch of day 3 picks on lineman like the Rams did...I feel like some in here would be triggered over that though lol

That's what I am finding so amusing about this. Suddenly the Rams philosophy is the benchmark because the same dog s**t OL from last year is playing better because they got back to running the ball more effectively and scaled back the passing. They are playing better, but to act like they did some rebuild and invested all these resources into the OL and that's why they are seeing this turnaround is laughable

If investing year over year for the OL (which is something we've been literally asking for like every year since Baalke) with quality picks beyond end of day 3 and a bunch of UDFA, cast-offs, etc., developing them and seeing them perform/play and deliver wins is "benchmark" then yes, I'll vote for that philosophy every time. And that same dogs**t OL the Rams had from last year had to take its lumps like ours did in 2018 seems different when the key piece to our OL can't even get on the field because of yet another season-impacting injury.

At least the Rams OL is, well, available.

Ah got it. It's investing when the Rams sit back do nothing outside adding a few mid round picks over the course of 4 years that can't crack the starting lineup because they let their best G walk. Got it.

You just mentioned 1 of the 3 cracked the starting line up right? Of the investments we've made outside of Williams and Tomlinson who were FA acquisitions, one replacing our best player on the OL was a net neutral. At least the Rams have a bench to develop.

We haven't had a good starting center for two seasons and an available one for a season and a half and that matters a lot to both the Rams and 49ers scheme.

1 out of 4 mid rounders in 4 years.
They were not FAs, they were trades that required ....get this....mid round picks to acquire them. And Williams for Staley is hardly a net neutral. And you keep conveniently leaving out the high investment of a top 10 pick who is their starting RT. Yeah sucks Richburg is always injured, but who came in off the bench to help the team down the stretch run to the SB? A FA the niners signed. And wait for it...,who stepped in last year when both OTs went down for a large part of the season..,,that's right, 2 rookies they brought in. Who stepped in when the starting RG went down during the stretch run? That's right one of the same guys lol

I'm not leaving out McG. You're calling that a win and clearly as not as important since as you say he can be easily replaced by a back-up.

You're seriously downplaying the importance of a good starting center for this scheme. It's not just a suggestion, it's a requirement so it more than just "sucks." And his replacement was a journeyman that came in to pinch hit and still got his ass beat regularly in the game that mattered most. So really was he good enough to hold his own while everyone around him elevated their game? Yes. That's not - not a starter, the definition of a back-up.

When both OTs went down we had one UDFA that stepped in to cover..and let's not act like Skule was some savant player that came out of nowhere. He can't even crack beating a bad FA who couldn't win in camp this year competing against ... himself.

But we're still waiting for Richburg...to move Garland to OG....so we can replace McG with maybe Brunskill....who's playing out of position. LOL

Who's on the 49ers bench?

A win?? We are talking about a philosophy of investing in the OL. You are touting a bunch of mid round picks, most of whom can't see the field, over 4 years and just ignoring the fact the niners used a top 10 pick on a RT....who is actually staring
I just told you who is on the bench.,,the same guys that came in and made it possible for this team to keep moving y ahead all the way the SB last year

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

That's what I am finding so amusing about this. Suddenly the Rams philosophy is the benchmark because the same dog s**t OL from last year is playing better because they got back to running the ball more effectively and scaled back the passing. They are playing better, but to act like they did some rebuild and invested all these resources into the OL and that's why they are seeing this turnaround is laughable

Lol right? Like I said I'm all for using day 3 picks to draft lineman to develop. I have a feeling a couple posters would have a conniption over that (while propping up that happening in LA).

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Lol right? Like I said I'm all for using day 3 picks to draft lineman to develop. I have a feeling a couple posters would have a conniption over that (while propping up that happening in LA).

Yah if the 9ers wouldve taken Connor McGovern over Jalen Hurd like I wanted I don't think right now the argument is any different. Wouldn't be getting credit for a 3rd rounder.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
You are touting players that aren't on the field either Hoov and what's worse, they were projected as starters. I'm not ignoring that fact at all. McG isn't being ignored. You're making this leap that because 3 players can't crack the starting lineup in LA means they're no good. I'm saying and have said the Rams OL is better than ours and those 3 would be challenged to start in LA.

If those three players were here, they would bench what we have "in development". One, the most important of the entire OL hasn't seen the filed in over a season.

So because Long retires, Garland gets hurt and Richburg wasn't able to come back that shows a lack of commitment but believing in an undrafted center who wasn't good last year somehow is? You want to penalize a lack of clairvoyance. That is Hoovs point you are missing.