Weston Richburg (retired)

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

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

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.

I am not really sure what to say here bud. You are touting these mid round picks they've drafted over the last 4 years that cannot get on the field even on the heals of a terrible OL year, so not sure where you are going with this. And no I believe I actually named of a bunch of bench guys that actually played key roles in the SB run last year. Anyway I digress, this conversation has run its course

Originally posted by NinerGM:

There's no doubt the biggest question fans have after the draft is, why didn't the Rams make the offensive line a top priority? After seeing how shaky the protection for Jared Goff was last year, and how few holes were opened up for Todd Gurley, it seemed impossible for the Rams to pass on the top linemen until Round 7.

Their decision to essentially ignore the offensive line until the end of the draft says two things: They didn't like the players that were available at each draft slot, and they're confident in their current group of blockers.

Les Snead made that abundantly clear after the draft wrapped up, saying there's no doubt the team likes its offensive line heading into the 2020 season.

"Definitely, that's obvious, because we didn't address OL until later," Snead said. "But I think Sean's mentioned it, we've been drafting young players for the last two, three years. Even when Sean mentioned yesterday trading for Austin Corbett, it was just a couple years ago that he was the 33rd pick in the draft and even this year we wouldn't have been able to pick an Austin Corbett."

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2020/04/27/nfl-draft-rams-offensive-line-ignore-address/

SO you're telling me that offensive line overall in last yr draft was trash and depth was just not there...yet are complaining we didn't spend more picks on OL lol. K

Man if only we invested a couple more day 3 picks like the Rams...instead of signing a top end center in FA, giving up a day 3 pick for a 1st rd OG (who's played damn near every snap), gave up 2 mid rd picks for one of the best LTs in football, and used a top 10 pick on a RT.

Like I said if the blue print of building an OL is using a bunch of mid rd picks, sign me up lol.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

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.

This

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Exactly. Our OL approach just isn't delivering what's desired. Last season it was PP, this season hell - these guys can't even run-block consistently and hope continuity will trump talent. Even JD pointed out we got our butts kicked by Seattle - SEATTLE that has some of the worst pass rush in the league.

Top tier team that wants to be a perennial playoff contender means we either will grab a QB that's much better than what we have - and I mean pro-bowl/elite because that's the only way to cover for this OL, or we start increasing the quality of investment in the OL with picks or invest those picks in a trade for a player or players that's a real upgrade (availability/durability and performance).

The definition of insanity is...

TBF, MM isn't working either.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

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.

But you fail to focus on standards. IF your 5th-7th or UDFA (like Moseley) beats out all those players and reaches the standard, that's ideal. When it wasn't, they added more talent like Ruiz when he wasn't even 'needed' today.

Also, how has OUR 5th-UDFA's done. If the FO was excellent at finding late talent like RB's, this would be a non issue. Instead, they went low volume AND low talent in that regard over the years.

Hence, why we're here.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

They didn't build anything back up from last year.

LOL. You're the only one making that leap.

You went from:

Rams learned after losing their OL too. They built it back up.

To:

They didn't build anything back up from last year.

This is one of your jokes we don't get, right? Lol, You made the statement and a few of us corrected you, just move on. They didn't build anything back up

You really don't read do you? LOL

It's OK you jumped to a conclusion. I ain't mad at you.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Clairvoyance? I was saying back in NOVEMBER when Richburg was hurt - the injury - many were saying wasn't something he would simply just bounce back and we needed to find a starter - not a backup - a starter. Garland was brought as a back-up last season and the fact we had no competition but again in a 2nd season waiting for Richburg to return while having no legit dudes to develop at center is a philosophy. Add to that not investing with draft picks, developing our own bench to replace a bad FA signings like all teams do is the issue.

But tell me again how not wanting to wait for Richburg was clairvoyance. Didn't see that coming at all.

Yes it's absolutely claiming clairvoyance when they have have 2 backup options to guard against Richburg not being healthy and both don't work out because or retiring and injury. Hoov points that out and you say "well they are hurt, they get no credit for that" as if somehow that can be foreseen.

Again show me "ALL teams" that have all these great bench OL. Look around the league. Who is the Saints "bench". Packers "bench" Seahawks "bench" Buccaneers "bench".

Do I think the 9ers should've invested more picks in OL over the years? YES I DO. If that is all you wanna argue i'm in total agreement. If you also want to say the 9ers need to prioritize a young center this offseason I would agree with that too.

Where we differ is in the reality that 9ers are doing the same thing other teams are doing in terms of building an OL. Their philosophy isn't any different. It's the narrative that Hoov, NY and I object to. It doesn't jive with reality. No one is using the philosophy you and Command want. You keep having to spin to ridiculous lengths to try and act like they are.

Originally posted by NCommand:
But you fail to focus on standards. IF your 5th-7th or UDFA (like Moseley) beats out all those players and reaches the standard, that's ideal. When it wasn't, they added more talent like Ruiz when he wasn't even 'needed' today.

Also, how has OUR 5th-UDFA's done. If the FO was excellent at finding late talent like RB's, this would be a non issue. Instead, they went low volume AND low talent in that regard over the years.

Hence, why we're here.

Ruiz wasn't needed? Um yah he was. You don't think they had planned on cutting Warford? That was the plan the entire time the minute they took Ruiz.

The jury is still out on Brunksill and McKivitz IMO. You have determined they can't play on small samples. Funny how the Rams didn't do the same and are getting praised for it.

Originally posted by NCommand:

But you fail to focus on standards. IF your 5th-7th or UDFA (like Moseley) beats out all those players and reaches the standard, that's ideal. When it wasn't, they added more talent like Ruiz when he wasn't even 'needed' today.

Also, how has OUR 5th-UDFA's done. If the FO was excellent at finding late talent like RB's, this would be a non issue. Instead, they went low volume AND low talent in that regard.

Hence, why we're here.

Maybe oh maybe Ruiz just wasn't the 25th best prospect in this last draft? Maybe he was over drafted because the depth at IOL was awful last draft (liked I stated). Clearly there was salary cap implications involved with that as well.

Like I said If the blue print of building a good OL is using a bunch of mid rd/day 3 picks I'm all for it....sounds like you and GM are as well. Good to know we're all in agreement

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

They didn't build anything back up from last year.

LOL. You're the only one making that leap.

You went from:

Rams learned after losing their OL too. They built it back up.

To:

They didn't build anything back up from last year.

This is one of your jokes we don't get, right? Lol, You made the statement and a few of us corrected you, just move on. They didn't build anything back up

You really don't read do you? LOL

It's OK you jumped to a conclusion. I ain't mad at you.

No one jumped to a conclusion. Quite a few of us came to the same conclusion based on that your wrote

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Ruiz wasn't needed? Um yah he was. You don't think they had planned on cutting Warford? That was the plan the entire time the minute they took Ruiz.

The jury is still out on Brunksill and McKivitz IMO. You have determined they can't play on small samples. Funny how the Rams didn't do the same and are getting praised for it.

This...pretty hypocritical imo.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

No that's what you're saying NY. My response from Les Snead was in response to your FIRST post, not the second.

Right, so you're telling me if we invested a couple LATE 3rd rd/day 3 picks on OL AND they were awful last yr...you would have been completely fine with doing absolutely nothing to make the OL better?

I'm gonna go ahead and call that b******t

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:

But you fail to focus on standards. IF your 5th-7th or UDFA (like Moseley) beats out all those players and reaches the standard, that's ideal. When it wasn't, they added more talent like Ruiz when he wasn't even 'needed' today.

Also, how has OUR 5th-UDFA's done. If the FO was excellent at finding late talent like RB's, this would be a non issue. Instead, they went low volume AND low talent in that regard over the years.

Hence, why we're here.

Ruiz wasn't needed? Um yah he was. You don't think they had planned on cutting Warford? That was the plan the entire time the minute they took Ruiz.

The jury is still out on Brunksill and McKivitz IMO. You have determined they can't play on small samples. Funny how the Rams didn't do the same and are getting praised for it.

I take that back. Warford opted out and let them know.

LOL at jury still out.

53 QB hits < 88 QB hits.

It's safe to say their talent evaluation is far better than ours even when we have 4 of the 5 starters still starting today and continuity. Goff is the same player every year so clearly they saw growth enough to stick with what they had. And it worked. That article outlines it for you too.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

They didn't build anything back up from last year.

LOL. You're the only one making that leap.

You went from:

Rams learned after losing their OL too. They built it back up.

To:

They didn't build anything back up from last year.

This is one of your jokes we don't get, right? Lol, You made the statement and a few of us corrected you, just move on. They didn't build anything back up

You really don't read do you? LOL

It's OK you jumped to a conclusion. I ain't mad at you.

No one jumped to a conclusion. Quite a few of us came to the same conclusion based on that your wrote

LOL. Case in point.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

No that's what you're saying NY. My response from Les Snead was in response to your FIRST post, not the second.

Right, so you're telling me if we invested a couple LATE 3rd rd/day 3 picks on OL AND they were awful last yr...you would have been completely fine with doing absolutely nothing to make the OL better?

I'm gonna go ahead and call that b******t

...if they were meeting standards and the staff saw growth, sure. Like they did with Brunskill but that hasn't panned out no matter where he's at in a starting position.