Andrew Thomas-OT-Georgia

Future all pro.
Will be top 10 pick.

Originally posted by xcfan:
Future all pro.
Will be top 10 pick.

I'd be thrilled with this pick

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Philosophical difference.

We have two holes. One guy won't fill both. Hell, might need 3 if Richburg continues to go on I.R. every year.

And you don't need dominant IDT to destroy our IOL. I just rewatched the condensed season and that really stood out (at least vs. last year's opponents). Kyle was using an extreme example to deflect but I think at this point, even he's starting to get it.

We have one hole and that's RG. Last I saw Joe was still playing

But if the goal is to move Thomas out to LT when Staley retires, that opens up another hole at G. To me, we still have two holes to fill and if Thomas ends up as a top G, I'm equally happy. But I'm weird like that.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Philosophical difference.

We have two holes. One guy won't fill both. Hell, might need 3 if Richburg continues to go on I.R. every year.

And you don't need dominant IDT to destroy our IOL. I just rewatched the condensed season and that really stood out (at least vs. last year's opponents). Kyle was using an extreme example to deflect but I think at this point, even he's starting to get it.

We have one hole and that's RG. Last I saw Joe was still playing

But if the goal is to move Thomas out to LT when Staley retires, that opens up another hole at G. To me, we still have two holes to fill and if Thomas ends up as a top G, I'm equally happy. But I'm weird like that.

Did Brunskill vanish in this scenario? He'll fill that spot.

Originally posted by NCommand:

But if the goal is to move Thomas out to LT when Staley retires, that opens up another hole at G. To me, we still have two holes to fill and if Thomas ends up as a top G, I'm equally happy. But I'm weird like that.

Then worry about that when Joe retires instead of throwing a tackle in to play guard (and using up his rookie contract) to play guard.

IMO use a trade down pick (2nd-5th rd) to get a guard to throw some competition at Brunskill. Hopefully one of the two can be a quality starter long-term. Once Joe finally retires, which might not be for a couple yrs get his replacement in the draft or FA.

Originally posted by Second2Nunley:

Originally posted by xcfan:

Future all pro.
Will be top 10 pick.

I'd be thrilled with this pick

I would not be opposed to trading 2 ones, moving up and getting this 10 year Staley replacement.

Originally posted by xcfan:

I would not be opposed to trading 2 ones, moving up and getting this 10 year Staley replacement.

calm down

Originally posted by SFrush:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Philosophical difference.

We have two holes. One guy won't fill both. Hell, might need 3 if Richburg continues to go on I.R. every year.

And you don't need dominant IDT to destroy our IOL. I just rewatched the condensed season and that really stood out (at least vs. last year's opponents). Kyle was using an extreme example to deflect but I think at this point, even he's starting to get it.

We have one hole and that's RG. Last I saw Joe was still playing

But if the goal is to move Thomas out to LT when Staley retires, that opens up another hole at G. To me, we still have two holes to fill and if Thomas ends up as a top G, I'm equally happy. But I'm weird like that.

Did Brunskill vanish in this scenario? He'll fill that spot.

You think Brunskill has the same talent and ceiling of Thomas?

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

But if the goal is to move Thomas out to LT when Staley retires, that opens up another hole at G. To me, we still have two holes to fill and if Thomas ends up as a top G, I'm equally happy. But I'm weird like that.

Then worry about that when Joe retires instead of throwing a tackle in to play guard (and using up his rookie contract) to play guard.

IMO use a trade down pick (2nd-5th rd) to get a guard to throw some competition at Brunskill. Hopefully one of the two can be a quality starter long-term. Once Joe finally retires, which might not be for a couple yrs get his replacement in the draft or FA.

I'm not looking for quality starters. I'm looking for a dominant T or G this year to go with our long lineage of IOL SF studs. I think many are still looking at the G position as a JAG, get-by-guy, decent, average, good enough, etc.

Brunskill has taken 50 snaps at G and fans are already anointing him as "good enough." That mentality is a big reason why we lost that Superbowl and I tried to warn you all.

The bottom line is, if he's the BPA, who cares if he becomes a dominant G or T. We badly need one now and another later anyhow. Obviously you hope he has the acumen to shift out to T seamlessly so fans will STFU about "value" but as a GM, Lynch would probably care less as long as he filed a hole with a dominant starter.

Anthony Davis and Mike Iupati. Does it really matter which is drafted first? We needed both.

And if he's a dominant G and Garoppolo is back there clean, crushing it comfortably on offense, no fan is going to care about the minuscule difference in "value" between G and T esp. in this system.

Imagine Jimmy not having to deal with this crap anymore.

Originally posted by NCommand:

I'm not looking for quality starters. I'm looking for a dominant T or G this year to go with our long lineage of IOL SF studs. I think many are still looking at the G position as a JAG, get-by-guy, decent, average, good enough, etc.

Brunskill has taken 50 snaps at G and fans are already anointing him as "good enough." That mentality is a big reason why we lost that Superbowl and I tried to warn you all.

The bottom line is, if he's the BPA, who cares if he becomes a dominant G or T. We badly need one now and another later anyhow. And if he's a dominant G and Garoppolo is back there clean, crushing it comfortably on offense, no fan is going to care about the minuscule difference in "value" between G and T esp. in this system.

Imagine Jimmy not having to deal with this crap anymore.

You tried warning us that we wouldn't do s**t because of our PP, YET we were 7 mins away from winning a super bowl (with a backup center and fringe starter at RG)...We don't need a top 13 pick all-pro RG we need a good RG and NEED to improve at other more important positions.

Yes fans won't care that we traded away buck for a f**king RG lol. Stop.

Again I'm with you in upgrading the IOL, I'm totally against using a top 13 pick to do that. Hopefully the scouts/FO can do their homework on scheme fit guards. They're there and you don't have to move your all-pro DT and use a top 15 pick to get them.

That's also not a great clip of anything imo (There's worse clips)... It was a monsoon. Maybe if we had a WR that can get open quicker than 4 secs that would help pass-protection as well? Everything plays off of everything to make an offense run.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

You tried warning us that we wouldn't do s**t because of our PP, YET we were 7 mins away from winning a super bowl (with a backup center and fringe starter at RG)...We don't need a top 13 pick all-pro RG we need a good RG and NEED to improve at other more important positions.

Yes fans won't care that we traded away buck for a f**king RG lol. Stop.

Again I'm with you in upgrading the IOL, I'm totally against using a top 13 pick to do that. Hopefully the scouts/FO can do their homework on scheme fit guards. They're there and you don't have to move your all-pro DT and use a top 15 pick to get them.

That's also not a great clip of anything imo (There's worse clips)... It was a monsoon. Maybe if we had a WR that can get open quicker than 4 secs that would help pass-protection as well? Everything plays off of everything to make an offense run.

Right, I could make a million of those clips. Jimmy is good enough to minimize it still, in many cases. That completion is why nobody talks about it but the film shows 4 of our 5 OL are below average to down right poor at pass protection.

Not sure how many more years in a row of evidence you need to see to start changing your philosophy but it seems more and more fans are starting to value T to play G this year.

I don't think reasonable fans look at it as Buckner for whatever position we draft at 13. A top WR is going to help fill out the WR group. An immediate top G is going to help fill out the OL group.

More and more mocks have T at 13 now and that T is not going to be playing T this year. He'll be playing G.

Are you ONLY going to be OK with that if that G moves out to T after Staley retires? If so, that sounds a little silly to me.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Right, I could make a million of those clips. Jimmy is good enough to minimize it still, in many cases. That completion is why nobody talks about it but the film shows 4 of our 5 OL are below average to down right poor at pass protection.

Not sure how many more years in a row of evidence you need to see to start changing your philosophy but it seems more and more fans are starting to value T to play G this year.

I don't think reasonable fans look at it as Buckner for whatever position we draft at 13. A top WR is going to help fill out the WR group. An immediate top G is going to help fill out the OL group.

More and more mocks have T at 13 now and that T is not going to be playing T this year. He'll be playing G.

Are you ONLY going to be OK with that if that G moves out to T after Staley retires? If so, that sounds a little silly to me.

Yes, I will only be okay if they move to LT (and I'm still not down with putting a player at guard who's played tackle his whole career). I'm not okay if the 13th overall pick is used on a tackle who turns out to be a RG. And a f**k ton of draft analysis will call it a fail as well (because it would be).

If you think fans aren't gonna link this pick to Buck then you're gonna be wrong.

And it's NOT just my philosophy it's our head coaches...he doesn't value guard the way you do and I'm not sure how many times I gotta tell you that right or wrong it's the truth and you know it.

Use that pick on a need now...stop drafting players and then move their positions around.

If the plan is to take a OT and push him inside then push him back out whenever the hell that is...use that 31st pick, move down and grab someone like Cleveland. Find a guy who can play RG and start there. Groom Brunskill to play guard or LT (which he was good at) look at 2021 and how good the tackle class is gonna be (because it's gonna be just as good). When Joe retires sign a vet. These are all better options imo.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Yes I will only be okay if they move to LT (and I'm still not down with putting a player at guard who's played tackle his whole career) I'm not okay if it's a 13th overall pick is used on a tackle who turns out to be a RG. And a f**k to of draft analysis will call it a fail as well (because it would be).

If you think fans aren't gonna link this pick to Buck then you're gonna be wrong.

And it's NOT just my philosophy it's our head coaches...he doesn't value guard the way you do and I'm not sure how many times I gotta tell you that right or wrong it's the truth and you know it.

Use that pick on a need now...stop drafting players and then move their positions around.

If the plan is to take a OT and push him inside then push him back out whenever the hell that is...use that 31st pick , move down and grab someone like Cleveland. OR find a guy who can play RG and start there. Groom Brumskill to play guard or LT (which he was good at) look at 2021 and how good the tackle class is gonna be (because it's gonna be just as good). When Joe retires sign a vet. These are all better options imo.

Haha...so BPA unless he plays G.

Yes, no doubt you and Kyle share the exact same philosophy on the valuation of G. Could that change now? I remain faithful. But probably not and it will be all over again...fans blaming Jimmy/Kyle when it matters most. Unless he expects to run all the way to another Superbowl, this OL will need to PP at some point and stand on its own talent; that was my warning to fans.

The talent of Thomas far exceeds a rotational T to play G in Brunskill or a T at 31. Ruiz will be long gone.

You're about getting maximum value based on your own personal positional values.

That's where we differ. And always will.

I think you need at least one top G esp. in this system and especially in today's game. By top G, I'm talking Staley-type balance...equally as talented in run blocking as pass protecting.

Thomas appears to fit that bill whether at G or T. And I'd be elated at either and I'm willing to bet the majority of fans wouldn't have an issue with it given every mock is either a WR or T (to play G) at 13.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Haha...so BPA unless he plays G.

Yes, no doubt you and Kyle share the exact same philosophy on the valuation of G. Could that change now? I remain faithful. But probably not and it will be all over again...fans blaming Jimmy/Kyle when it matters most. Unless he expects to run all the way to another Superbowl, this OL will need to PP at some point and stand on its own.

The talent of Thomas far exceeds a rotational T to play G in Brunskill or a T at 31. Ruiz will be long gone.

You're about getting maximum value based on your own personal positional values.

That's where we differ. And always will.

I think you need at least one top G esp. in this system and especially in today's game. By top G, I'm talking Staley-type balance...equally as talented in run blocking as pass protecting.

Thomas appears to fit that bill whether at G or T. And I'd be elated at either and I'm willing to bet the majority of fans wouldn't have an issue with it given every mock is either a WR or T (to play G) at 13.

NOT Drafting players then moving them around that have never played said position is something I thought we agreed upon awhile ago, no?

Why does it have to be Ruiz only? I mean have you watched anyone else that could play RG? There's a list of solid guys that can play there and won't require a top 13 pick to get them.

BPA is fine, but when you're talking about a top 13 pick that doesn't mean if a RB is BPA he should be the pick. If a LBer is BPA that doesn't mean he should be the pick. Same goes for someone that's gonna play RG for the next couple yrs and might just end up staying there.

Who's the top G in KC?

Brandon Brooks was the best guard in football this year and was a 3rd rd pick. In fact that Philly OL is regarded as one of the best in football and yet Wentz got hit 100x this yr.

Joe Thuney was also a 3rd rd pick. In fact outside of Nelson/Martin just about every good OG was found outside of the 1st.

Who cares what mocks say? Fans will tie in this pick with Buck. I don't think you'll find a single SF fan that said yeah let's trade Buck for a RG

Originally posted by NYniner85:

NOT Drafting players then moving them around that have never played said position is something I thought we agreed upon awhile ago, no?

Why does it have to be Ruiz only? I mean have you watched anyone else that could play RG? There's a list of solid guys that can play there and won't require a top 13 pick to get them.

BPA is fine, but when you're talking about a top 13 pick that doesn't mean if a RB is BPA he should be the pick. If a LBer is BPA that doesn't mean he should be the pick. Same goes for someone that's gonna play RG for the next couple yrs and might just end up staying there.

Who's the top G in KC?

Brandon Brooks was the best guard in football this year and was a 3rd rd pick. In fact that Philly OL is regarded as one of the best in football and yet Wentz got hit 100x this yr.

Joe Thuney was also a 3rd rd pick. In fact outside of Nelson/Martin just about every good OG was found outside of the 1st.

Who cares what mocks say? Fans will tie in this pick with Buck. I don't think you'll find a single SF fan that said yeah let's trade Buck for a RG

Don't want "solid. Solid can only take you so far.

As Brunskill just demonstrated, T/G is nearly irrelevant in this system. I'd be willing to bet Staley and McGlinchey would have zero issues playing G in this system if they simply trained there.

But if Thomas is a 13 BPA pick at a need position (and he clearly is), you don't break your own BPA rule because he's a G? And we have a huge need at G and T eventually (unlike LB).

Maybe by cutting Person making only $2.5M, another "solid" G, Kyle is starting to think about adding some real talent at G for once? Maybe? . Otherwise, why not just keep him in a system he knows inside and out and complete with Brunskill?

Obviously I'd prefer Thomas' value as an eventual T too to replace Staley while giving you top notch talent at G in the interim (in theory).

But it's not just fans...it's virtually every mock I've seen...either WR or T and they are picking T because one of the top 4 T's will be available there (BPA subscription). I've seen a couple IDT's there. No CB's. It's WR and T by a landslide and close to being neck-n-neck.

If Chris Simms is right, maybe we should be talking more about WR at 31 instead.

The easiest route to the QB is straight through the A-C gaps.

I'll tell you this though; I'll definitely be referencing your knowledge of 2-4th round solid OL who could become more under Benton.

If only we had a 2-4.