Andrew Thomas-OT-Georgia

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

My own rule? Just because a player is "BPA" doesn't mean they're worth that spot based on the position you're gonna play them. I showed you that I'm my example. Barkley was BPA when he was drafted no way in hell I'm drafting a RB at 2.

we saw McG try to play guard and he was hot trash. Solid guard play gets teams to Super Bowls. It also gets you championships (KC).

If Thomas (who matt Miller said was a better run-blocker than pass protector) is an elite OL talent that can just be plopped anywhere, how the hell is making it to SF? Just about every team ahead of us and teams right behind us (who can move up) all have needs along the line.

Would it be the worst thing in the world? No. Would it be the best scenario imo? No. Throw in OTAs training camp might not happen and you want to move a dude to a different position .

Sorry my man, just don't agree with that overall. Get a good guard prospect after moving down with that 31st pick...hell if Thomas is still there I'm calling TB and seeing if I can get a 4th to move down one spot.

Agree to disagree on converting a tackle to a RG and having him play two yrs of his rookie contract inside.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

My own rule? Just because a player is "BPA" doesn't mean they're worth that spot based on the position you're gonna play them. I showed you that I'm my example. Barkley was BPA when he was drafted no way in hell I'm drafting a RB at 2.

we saw McG try to play guard and he was hot trash. Solid guard play gets teams to Super Bowls. It also gets you championships (KC).

If Thomas (who matt Miller said was a better run-blocker than pass protector) is an elite OL talent that can just be plopped anywhere, how the hell is making it to SF? Just about every team ahead of us and teams right behind us (who can move up) all have needs along the line.

Would it be the worst thing in the world? No. Would it be the best scenario imo? No. Throw in OTAs training camp might not happen and you want to move a dude to a different position .

Sorry my man, just don't agree with that overall. Get a good guard prospect after moving down with that 31st pick...hell if Thomas is still there I'm calling TB and seeing if I can get a 4th to move down one spot.

Agree to disagree on converting a tackle to a RG and having him play two yrs of his rookie contract inside.

Your rule and many others. TBF, I agree with some of it. BPA unless it's a RB (unless its Christian McCaffrey in this offense). OL is OL to me so I don't throw in G like some in that rule but that's a popular pass too (No RB, no G, no TE, etc.). All OL are incredibly valuable to me esp. with a less than mobile FQB on a knee brace and an offense built on timing and PA where you lose 2 seconds on every play fake.

Like Brunskill, McGlinchey had never taken a snap at G before and had zero snaps there all pre season and then in game 1, Kyle moves his talent inside to G out of desperation. My point, if he were to concentrate there, no doubt he'd be successful because he's supremely talented and the assignments are so uniformily similar in OZ.

Yeah, that would totally suck for 2 years:



I am laughing at the irony though, that I agreed with your original premise that this is all moot - Thomas will most likely be gone anyhow by 13.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

My own rule? Just because a player is "BPA" doesn't mean they're worth that spot based on the position you're gonna play them. I showed you that I'm my example. Barkley was BPA when he was drafted no way in hell I'm drafting a RB at 2.

we saw McG try to play guard and he was hot trash. Solid guard play gets teams to Super Bowls. It also gets you championships (KC).

If Thomas (who matt Miller said was a better run-blocker than pass protector) is an elite OL talent that can just be plopped anywhere, how the hell is making it to SF? Just about every team ahead of us and teams right behind us (who can move up) all have needs along the line.

Would it be the worst thing in the world? No. Would it be the best scenario imo? No. Throw in OTAs training camp might not happen and you want to move a dude to a different position .

Sorry my man, just don't agree with that overall. Get a good guard prospect after moving down with that 31st pick...hell if Thomas is still there I'm calling TB and seeing if I can get a 4th to move down one spot.

Agree to disagree on converting a tackle to a RG and having him play two yrs of his rookie contract inside.

Your rule and many others. TBF, I agree with some of it. BPA unless it's a RB (unless its Christian McCaffrey in this offense). OL is OL to me so I don't throw in G like some in that rule but that's a popular pass too (No RB, no G, no TE, etc.). All OL are incredibly valuable to me esp. with a less than mobile FQB on a knee brace and an offense built on timing and PA where you lose 2 seconds on every play fake.

Like Brunskill, McGlinchey had never taken a snap at G before and had zero snaps there all pre season and then in game 1, Kyle moves his talent inside to G out of desperation. My point, if he were to concentrate there, no doubt he'd be successful because he's supremely talented and the assignments are so uniformily similar in OZ.

Yeah, that would totally suck for 2 years:

Staley - Tomlinson/Brunskill - Richburg - Thomas - McGlinchey

I am laughing at the irony though, that I agreed with your original premise that this is all moot - Thomas will most likely be gone anyhow by 13.

See that's where the disconnect is, you value every position on the line the same and I do not. Our HC and for the most part a lot of GMs think the same.

It's like saying DL is DL. IMO a edge rusher is more important than a DT. Unless that DT is so dominant as a pass rusher (Donald) that you're forced to take him. More often than not that's not the case.

Yeah imo this whole discussion is moot lol. I fully expect all 4 of the OTs to be gone by 13, I won't be shocked if someone moves up behind us as well.

FWIW I don't dislike Wirfs/Wills/Thomas, not sure all three end up as long-term LTs though. Big cat isn't on my board because I can't see SF grabbing him.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
My own rule? Just because a player is "BPA" doesn't mean they're worth that spot based on the position you're gonna play them. I showed you that I'm my example. Barkley was BPA when he was drafted no way in hell I'm drafting a RB at 2.

we saw McG try to play guard and he was hot trash. Solid guard play gets teams to Super Bowls. It also gets you championships (KC).

If Thomas (who matt Miller said was a better run-blocker than pass protector) is an elite OL talent that can just be plopped anywhere, how the hell is making it to SF? Just about every team ahead of us and teams right behind us (who can move up) all have needs along the line.

Would it be the worst thing in the world? No. Would it be the best scenario imo? No. Throw in OTAs training camp might not happen and you want to move a dude to a different position .

Sorry my man, just don't agree with that overall. Get a good guard prospect after moving down with that 31st pick...hell if Thomas is still there I'm calling TB and seeing if I can get a 4th to move down one spot.

Agree to disagree on converting a tackle to a RG and having him play two yrs of his rookie contract inside.

Your rule and many others. TBF, I agree with some of it. BPA unless it's a RB (unless its Christian McCaffrey in this offense). OL is OL to me so I don't throw in G like some in that rule but that's a popular pass too (No RB, no G, no TE, etc.). All OL are incredibly valuable to me esp. with a less than mobile FQB on a knee brace and an offense built on timing and PA where you lose 2 seconds on every play fake.

Like Brunskill, McGlinchey had never taken a snap at G before and had zero snaps there all pre season and then in game 1, Kyle moves his talent inside to G out of desperation. My point, if he were to concentrate there, no doubt he'd be successful because he's supremely talented and the assignments are so uniformily similar in OZ.

Yeah, that would totally suck for 2 years:

Staley - Tomlinson/Brunskill - Richburg - Thomas - McGlinchey

I am laughing at the irony though, that I agreed with your original premise that this is all moot - Thomas will most likely be gone anyhow by 13.

See that's where the disconnect is, you value every position on the line the same and I do not. Our HC and for the most part a lot of GMs think the same.

It's like saying DL is DL. IMO a edge rusher is more important than a DT. Unless that DT is so dominant as a pass rusher (Donald) that you're forced to take him. More often than not that's not the case.

Yeah imo this whole discussion is moot lol. I fully expect all 4 of the OTs to be gone by 13, I won't be shocked if someone moves up behind us as well.

FWIW I don't dislike Wirfs/Wills/Thomas, not sure all three end up as long-term LTs though. Big cat isn't on my board because I can't see SF grabbing him.

It all depends on who the Giants select. If they take a defensive player I could very well see one of those OT's sliding to 13.

I thought this thread was about Andrew Thomas? A player that may or may not drop to #13.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

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.

Exactly. The OL was a major reason, and that also includes statistically both in RB and PP, why this team had the success that it did and went to the SB....and that's without their starting C.
Gee it's almost as if that clip above featured an OL that just was starting out missing their 2 starting OT and swing T
also don't think people are anointing Brunskill. But if a high round pick played as well as he did, I think folks would be singing a different tune. Folks started anointing Moseley, Moore etc based on promise and small sample size play.
all that said I wouldn't have a problem Thomas, but would prefer one of the top WR

Originally posted by NYniner85:

See that's where the disconnect is, you value every position on the line the same and I do not. Our HC and for the most part a lot of GMs think the same.

It's like saying DL is DL. IMO a edge rusher is more important than a DT. Unless that DT is so dominant as a pass rusher (Donald) that you're forced to take him. More often than not that's not the case.

Yeah imo this whole discussion is moot lol. I fully expect all 4 of the OTs to be gone by 13, I won't be shocked if someone moves up behind us as well.

FWIW I don't dislike Wirfs/Wills/Thomas, not sure all three end up as long-term LTs though. Big cat isn't on my board because I can't see SF grabbing him.

I do. Absolutely. Always have and our own history backs that up.

We're talking about a potential top 10 pick falling to 13. And what is the difference between a dominant IDT and ER? Is Aaron Donald (top 10 pick) that much less effective than Nick Bosa? Staley from a top G like Nelson?

We're talking about a top 10 talent.

You can't devalue any of the top T's if you think all 4 will go top 10 JUST because one might play G for us for a year or two in our scheme. Top talent is top talent. Period. He's going to help this line expoentionally no matter where he starts. Any of the four. And you may not realize just by how much as we've had nothing but subpar G's here since Mike Iupati, who was drafted at 17.

I don't see Becton either...scheme.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Exactly. The OL was a major reason, and that also includes statistically both in RB and PP, why this team had the success that it did and went to the SB....and that's without their starting C.
Gee it's almost as if that clip above featured an OL that just was starting out missing their 2 starting OT and swing T
also don't think people are anointing Brunskill. But if a high round pick played as well as he did, I think folks would be singing a different tune. Folks started anointing Moseley, Moore etc based on promise and small sample size play.
all that said I wouldn't have a problem Thomas, but would prefer one of the top WR

Run blocking. Poor pass blocking.

That's just an example of our best G getting shoved back 6 yards into our QB. If that's Mullen's or BeatHard, that's another year of 100 QB hits and a truckload of sacks.

Free Garoppolo. Give Benton one healthy young premier talented IOL. Just one. Let's stop changing of the RG every other year with stop gaps and develop a cornerstone.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Exactly. The OL was a major reason, and that also includes statistically both in RB and PP, why this team had the success that it did and went to the SB....and that's without their starting C.
Gee it's almost as if that clip above featured an OL that just was starting out missing their 2 starting OT and swing T
also don't think people are anointing Brunskill. But if a high round pick played as well as he did, I think folks would be singing a different tune. Folks started anointing Moseley, Moore etc based on promise and small sample size play.
all that said I wouldn't have a problem Thomas, but would prefer one of the top WR

Run blocking. Poor pass blocking.

That's just an example of our best G getting shoved back 6 yards into our QB. If that's Mullen's or BeatHard, that's another year of 100 QB hits and a truckload of sacks.

Free Garoppolo. Give Benton one healthy young premier talented IOL. Just one. Let's stop changing of the RG every other year with stop gaps and develop a cornerstone.

Nah, was not poor pass blocking. Was well above average
as evidenced by sacks and QB hits. I don't really go by grades, but even the grades were middle of the road.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Nah, was not poor pass blocking. Was well above average
as evidenced by sacks and QB hits. I don't really go by grades, but even the grades were middle of the road.

Interesting you still believe that. But if you don't buy the advanced analytics, I understand.

I take it you're good with Tomlinson, Richburg and Brunskill as the IOL?

Who do you want at 13 and 31.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Nah, was not poor pass blocking. Was well above average
as evidenced by sacks and QB hits. I don't really go by grades, but even the grades were middle of the road.

Sacks and QB hits don't tell the whole story. If your team can't run the ball and you play in more obvious pass rush situations, you'll have more sacks and QB hits. If you have to come from behind, you'll have more sacks and QB hits. Neither applies to the 49ers. We had the 2nd most rushing attempts, the 2nd most rushing yards, and the fourth fewest passing attempts.

The other factor is how quickly the QB gets rid of the ball, how they move in the pocket, etc. Garoppolo has a quick release and the 49ers did a good job of getting the ball out quickly to make up for having a mediocre OL. Compare that to a team like the Cowboys who make their QB look great because he has a clean pocket and forever to throw the ball.

We were 26th out of 32 teams in pass block win rate last year at 55%. That's not middling - that's bad. And that's with McGlinchey ranking 5th among OTs with a 93% win rate. The only team with more rushing yards than us (Ravens) had the #2 pass block win rate (69%).

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27584726/nfl-pass-blocking-pass-rushing-rankings-2019-pbwr-prwr-leaderboard

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Nah, was not poor pass blocking. Was well above average
as evidenced by sacks and QB hits. I don't really go by grades, but even the grades were middle of the road.

Sacks and QB hits don't tell the whole story. If your team can't run the ball and you play in more obvious pass rush situations, you'll have more sacks and QB hits. If you have to come from behind, you'll have more sacks and QB hits. Neither applies to the 49ers. We had the 2nd most rushing attempts, the 2nd most rushing yards, and the fourth fewest passing attempts.

The other factor is how quickly the QB gets rid of the ball, how they move in the pocket, etc. Garoppolo has a quick release and the 49ers did a good job of getting the ball out quickly to make up for having a mediocre OL. Compare that to a team like the Cowboys who make their QB look great because he has a clean pocket and forever to throw the ball.

We were 26th out of 32 teams in pass block win rate last year at 55%. That's not middling - that's bad. And that's with McGlinchey ranking 5th among OTs with a 93% win rate. The only team with more rushing yards than us (Ravens) had the #2 pass block win rate (69%).

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27584726/nfl-pass-blocking-pass-rushing-rankings-2019-pbwr-prwr-leaderboard

^ this man, gets it!

IOL pass protection is crucial in a play action offense.

By the time Garoppolo fakes the handoff, turns around, and sets his feet to start scanning, that's 2 seconds gone. That, in many cases means, he's got .5 seconds to make it to his first read before getting blasted or buried or moved off his spot and disrupting timing. And remarkably, he made those throws a lot and in part, because of Kyle's scheme.

This is why I value G (pass protection) more than most in this scheme.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Nah, was not poor pass blocking. Was well above average
as evidenced by sacks and QB hits. I don't really go by grades, but even the grades were middle of the road.

Interesting you still believe that. But if you don't buy the advanced analytics, I understand.

I take it you're good with Tomlinson, Richburg and Brunskill as the IOL?

Who do you want at 13 and 31.

Not sure why it's interesting, I'm using your parameters for gauging the OL play....QB hits and sacks as mentioned above, a lot of the grades by the analytics folks have them middle of the road, so not poor.
if Richburg is healthy then yes I am. But I've also told you numerous times I'm fine upgrading the interior, just not going to reach and/or ignore other needs to do so
also previously mentioned I'd like one of the big 3 WRs at 13 and a trade back at 31 and take someone like Ruiz or someone like Hennessy a bit later... I am also fine with WR/CB OL/WR Etc etc. whatever the best value is at that pick, especially at positions if need

Originally posted by Hopper:

It all depends on who the Giants select. If they take a defensive player I could very well see one of those OT's sliding to 13.

If they do that then a team that might go defense after NY could easily go OT. Also I'll bet money that TB moves up to get the last OT. They're in win now with Brady and need a tackle in the worst way. I could also see Miami moving up from 18 to get the last OT as well.

Originally posted by FL9er:
I thought this thread was about Andrew Thomas? A player that may or may not drop to #13.

Daniel Jeremiah's latest top 50 puts Thomas at #17, the fourth highest OT on his list. Jeremiah's main issue with Thomas is that he is not a very agile player. Strong at the point of attack but to move to the second level in Kyle's system does not look like a strength.