49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
I know I am probably annoying some people on here with the analytics but I have a month subscription to pff. So I am going to use it damn it. I don't think you'll find any of this surprising NC.

Pff weighs their pass blocking efficiency toward sacks allowed. They had us ranked 10th in the league and 13th in the post season. That is 13 out of 14 teams for the post season for pass blocking efficiency.

Percentage wise, we gave up a pressure on 22.7% of our pass snaps in the regular season. LAR gave up a pressure on 22.3% of their pass snaps. Pretty much neck and neck when it comes to the regular season.

However, when it came to the post season, things were very different. Pff had LAR ranked 4th, giving up a pressure on 18.8% of their pass snaps. SF on the otherhand were ranked 13th, giving up a pressure on 41.8% of their pass snaps. If we aren't weighing the efficiency toward sacks but by pressure rate, that makes them dead last in the post season.

TW allowed 0.8 pressures per game in the 2021 regular season. He allowed 1 pressure in each of the DAL game and GB game. So lets just say TW went into LA healthy and he only gave up 1 pressure in that game. We would have still ranked 12th in the post season and gave up a pressure on 36.7% of our pass snaps.

We had 79 pass snaps in total in the post season. 33 total pressures. Laken Tomlinson gave up 9 pressures, Tom Compton gave up 9 pressures and Trent Williams gave up 7 pressures. I give Trent a pass because of the injury but LT and TC gave up more than half of the pressures in the post season. That's probably why they let Tomlinson and Compton go in FA.

Bump for the those in the back who are talking to themselves and not listening in class. LOL

Bumping again because I still think folks are missing what YAC is saying....

There's only 2-3 who are ignoring it. The QB-centric crowd. I think everyone else gets the point and probably didn't need this added data after watching it happen a second time cost us. (and yes, there were a lot of other things too).

didn't you say you go by your eyes.. so why now you need stats ?

also, if the QB doesn't throw/or hold the ball longer than the QB should, a pressure is recorded. jimmy also likes to wait a lot of times for that middle route to open up.. he also doesn't have many anticipation throws so he holds the ball a little longer

one example is the INT on the final play of the NFCCG, jimmy chose not to throw and created the pressure.. no OL is going to able to shut down Donald/miller.

I use everything. That's how I came to like Brunskill before most. My own watch (usually several times and not just the OL...usually watch different units, one at a time), PFF, FO, DM with SME's, WZ contributions, etc.

There are many cases where it all lines up.

But MY focus isn't on just players executing. Its much more on FO philosophy, team building strategy, team needs, reality, etc. What do WE need to get over the hump with what we have right now.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Talent level is completely subjective. Definitely not 'on paper'.

Draft position is 'on paper'. And that's only one item that would be 'on paper', and about the only think that's actually 'on paper' in regards to Moore and Banks given they have only 3 starts between them (starts, snaps played would also be 'on paper').

Let's be real here, you haven't compared the draft position of these two players against the starting guards of all 32 teams, and even if you had it would be ridiculous to ignore all the other 'on paper' items you could bring to the table in the comparison. You weren't even definitive in whether the tandem was better 'on paper' than half or 2/3 of the rest of the teams in the league. Let me help you out.... it's not.

Starts and snaps are just a count of how much you played. If you are terrible (like most of the NFL is at guard) that doesn't count in your favor. So yes on paper guys who were highly drafted will be rated higher than those that arent who have struggled when playing. It's why there are so many calls for higher drafted players. Of course talent is subjective.

I don't know whether the guys are better or are terrible because i haven't seen them play. But those in this thread that determine talent solely on draft position and name recognition might.

Originally posted by NCommand:
The disconnect is QB-centric fans can't see anything past that. There's rarely been an OL discussion where you and NY don't pivot to QB. The struggle is real.

That tells me, 1. You can't separate it and look at it independently and objectively and 2. You expect a QB to transcend it no MATTER how poor they play.

YOU started with the OL cost us SBS and NFC titles games and now have morphed into everything being equally at fault.

I can see past Jimmy. But I can also see he WAS the biggest issue BECAUSE when he had protection he failed. Again why should I believe with better protection he would've completed big passes when he didnt? That's what you haven't explained.

Do you really believe that we win that game with the Rams OL?

Originally posted by lamontb:
I'm with NC on this one. It was much bigger than jimmy against the Rams.

Looking forward to reviewing the new crop of players. Hope its a unit that brings much more positivity going forward.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Starts and snaps are just a count of how much you played. If you are terrible (like most of the NFL is at guard) that doesn't count in your favor. So yes on paper guys who were highly drafted will be rated higher than those that arent who have struggled when playing. It's why there are so many calls for higher drafted players. Of course talent is subjective.

I don't know whether the guys are better or are terrible because i haven't seen them play. But those in this thread that determine talent solely on draft position and name recognition might.

I understand what starts and snap counts are. I referenced them because those numbers are 'on paper'. What I am asking you to do is support your claim that Moore and Banks are a better guard tandem than half or 2/3 of the teams in the league 'on paper'. It's an absolutely unsupportable and ridiculous claim, and I mean that in the least disrespectful way possible, lol.

These players have almost nothing 'on paper' outside of draft position.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Theres nothing to ignore. The problem with how you frame it is your suggestion that if say they only gave up 15 pressures that would've been a difference maker. I disagree. Hell YAC just talked a couple posts ago about how JImmy couldn't complete pressure beaters.

Again this is the disconnect. You seem to be of the belief that Jimmy doesn't play well BECAUSE of the O line play. I don't think the O line has much to do with it because I saw the guy miss plenty of open chances. Why should I believe he will suddenly be more effective all the sudden? I also saw Stafford make plays DESPITE the pressure he faced.

To put it another way JImmys poor play had much less to do with the O lines poor play then the reverse. I would agree that neither were good enough. Will you admit that it cant possibly be that both were equally problematic?

Even the best qbs in the game have trouble executing when they get immediately pressured, and none of us think Jimmy falls into that category. Jimmy wasn't the one giving up immediate pressure, he was the one having to try and deliver under it, which we all know is a recipie for disaster, even when hes not dealing with injuries to his hand and shoulder.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What is it 'on paper' that you are using to compare the position across all 32 teams? Is it draft position? Because they have what, 3 starts between them... I don't see what there is 'on paper' to support your claim. Support it.

Talent level and draft position yes. If you are trying to argue that doesn't matter I wouldn't disagree. Why I said on paper. Thats not where the league is played. But there's post after post on how we should've used higher picks on OL littering this thread.

Hell NC railed for months on how we should've drafted Cesar Ruiz and he's been a colossal disappointment in New Orleans. But on paper the Saints look great with 2 first round guards.

LOL. I wanted him at the time for C. They've pushed him to RG and that's not his strength. Yet they're always a top 5 unit so probably not the best example.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Soooooo many odd perceptions in here. I really don't know where you guys pull this stuff out of your ass.

The end-season 8 and 9 ranking by two different sources for the Chiefs in their Superbowl year was to provide context they improved and were a higher end unit by the time they hit the playoffs. I also said if you want to stick with PFF's 16 rating, that's fine.

They bought a new OL after they lost in 2020...because of the OL. You see how your stance is contradictory? When he had a better line, he won. When he didn't, like most elite QB's, he lost. Soooooo?

I have never said all failed components of a loss are/were equal. No matter how YOU weigh them, it took all of those elements in whole to lead to the L despite those same components in helping to get up two scores in the 4Q too.

Then you go full NY85 Madden style and shift to the winning QB for a hypothetical for us AFTER YAC already showed you the differentials in the playoffs (GM...you called it; they didn't read it). So you think had Stafford been pressured 42% of the time, had 15 pressures and less than 3 yards a rush (50 total), he would have won? Tell me you are a QB-can-transcend-everthing guy without telling me that. That's totally fine but a little silly. We weren't building a team around Stafford. That wasn't our reality.

So Jimmy's contract is prohibiting the FO from signing FA OL? How about the previous 4 years? Not really the FO's M.O.

So the entire IOL of the Chiefs went from top 10 to the point they needed to change the whole thing in 1 year? You really believe that?

Yes I do think he would've won because there were opportunities in that game DESPITE the OL struggles that Stafford would've taken advantage of. See you credit Jimmy for being up 10 but the O line was also there. So why is it crazy to think that with the opportunities that existed early in the game that Stafford, a better qb, would've taken better advantage? Lets be real too, Rams aren't defending us with a 1.5 gap bear front with Matthew Stafford at QB. To ignore how much effect the QB has is the problem. It's not about transcending, its about making things better because of your skill set. Do you think we will see a 1.5 gap bear front for 17 games this year with Trey?

No matter how you weigh them. Good Lord. Why do you think the 9ers went after CB first? Because they weighed it as the biggest issue we had (rightfully so). You always weigh your issues. Nothing is looked at as the same. But because you want to try and seem "objective" you dodge when in reality you put the primary blame of the loss on the O line. At least own it.

The FO signed the biggest contract in OL history. They've signed 2 FA centers. If they had the money yes I think if they saw a guy who would help they would add them. Still might. But they've married themselves to this Jimmy gamble now and are playing it out.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Even the best qbs in the game have trouble executing when they get immediately pressured, and none of us think Jimmy falls into that category. Jimmy wasn't the one giving up immediate pressure, he was the one having to try and deliver under it, which we all know is a recipie for disaster, even when hes not dealing with injuries to his hand and shoulder.

Perfect response. Nailed it!

Now THAT is how you talk OL in the OL thread independent of the QB.

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I wanted him at the time for C. They've pushed him to RG and that's not his strength. Yet they're always a top 5 unit so probably not the best example.

18 per PFF last year. Where did FO have em? Funny how they were top 5 with Brees and tanked when he was gone.

Think theyll be top 5 this year?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I understand what starts and snap counts are. I referenced them because those numbers are 'on paper'. What I am asking you to do is support your claim that Moore and Banks are a better guard tandem than half or 2/3 of the teams in the league 'on paper'. It's an absolutely unsupportable and ridiculous claim, and I mean that in the least disrespectful way possible, lol.

These players have almost nothing 'on paper' outside of draft position.

Since you don't follow this thread you didn't understand the tongue in cheek nature of the post.

I DONT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. I want to see players play. I don't decide their talent level based on draft position.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Even the best qbs in the game have trouble executing when they get immediately pressured, and none of us think Jimmy falls into that category. Jimmy wasn't the one giving up immediate pressure, he was the one having to try and deliver under it, which we all know is a recipie for disaster, even when hes not dealing with injuries to his hand and shoulder.

But when he didn't have pressure (a lot of the game) he didn't deliver. So why is the assumption he would if he had less pressure?

OL play doesnt make good QB play, it can only ruin it. QB has to see things. Jimmy didnt. Why I hold him more responsible because the plays were there to be made.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Soooooo many odd perceptions in here. I really don't know where you guys pull this stuff out of your ass.

The end-season 8 and 9 ranking by two different sources for the Chiefs in their Superbowl year was to provide context they improved and were a higher end unit by the time they hit the playoffs. I also said if you want to stick with PFF's 16 rating, that's fine.

They bought a new OL after they lost in 2020...because of the OL. You see how your stance is contradictory? When he had a better line, he won. When he didn't, like most elite QB's, he lost. Soooooo?

I have never said all failed components of a loss are/were equal. No matter how YOU weigh them, it took all of those elements in whole to lead to the L despite those same components in helping to get up two scores in the 4Q too.

Then you go full NY85 Madden style and shift to the winning QB for a hypothetical for us AFTER YAC already showed you the differentials in the playoffs (GM...you called it; they didn't read it). So you think had Stafford been pressured 42% of the time, had 15 pressures and less than 3 yards a rush (50 total), he would have won? Tell me you are a QB-can-transcend-everthing guy without telling me that. That's totally fine but a little silly. We weren't building a team around Stafford. That wasn't our reality.

So Jimmy's contract is prohibiting the FO from signing FA OL? How about the previous 4 years? Not really the FO's M.O.

So the entire IOL of the Chiefs went from top 10 to the point they needed to change the whole thing in 1 year? You really believe that?

Yes I do think he would've won because there were opportunities in that game DESPITE the OL struggles that Stafford would've taken advantage of. See you credit Jimmy for being up 10 but the O line was also there. So why is it crazy to think that with the opportunities that existed early in the game that Stafford, a better qb, would've taken better advantage? Lets be real too, Rams aren't defending us with a 1.5 gap bear front with Matthew Stafford at QB. To ignore how much effect the QB has is the problem. It's not about transcending, its about making things better because of your skill set. Do you think we will see a 1.5 gap bear front for 17 games this year with Trey?

No matter how you weigh them. Good Lord. Why do you think the 9ers went after CB first? Because they weighed it as the biggest issue we had (rightfully so). You always weigh your issues. Nothing is looked at as the same. But because you want to try and seem "objective" you dodge when in reality you put the primary blame of the loss on the O line. At least own it.

The FO signed the biggest contract in OL history. They've signed 2 FA centers. If they had the money yes I think if they saw a guy who would help they would add them. Still might. But they've married themselves to this Jimmy gamble now and are playing it out.

No, the entire unit got destroyed and cost them a Superbowl and nearly got Mahomes killed (part of his YOLO efforts too). Therefore they made sweeping changes to the entire OL. Just like the Bengals. They bought, traded, drafted as much talent as possible and added it to the existing/remaining pool. In short, they saw a unit that failed and then prioritized it.

Go on with your bad self on your own hypothetical but at least add the same exact scenario to it. And if you really want to be genuine about that, go find a game where Stafford had similar post season OL stats YAC posted in a game where he transcended that. It doesn't have to be a playoff game either. Hell, go back to Detroit.

Right, the FO weighted the QB, CB, RB, ER, DL, etc. as carrying a heavier weight for failures. Conversely, they let Tomlinson go and brought in 4th-UDFA's this year. That tells you that's not a major priority to them and they didn't see that as big of a reason for the loss. Like you. But is it accurate?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. I wanted him at the time for C. They've pushed him to RG and that's not his strength. Yet they're always a top 5 unit so probably not the best example.

18 per PFF last year. Where did FO have em? Funny how they were top 5 with Brees and tanked when he was gone.

Think theyll be top 5 this year?

They were 4 the year before.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Even the best qbs in the game have trouble executing when they get immediately pressured, and none of us think Jimmy falls into that category. Jimmy wasn't the one giving up immediate pressure, he was the one having to try and deliver under it, which we all know is a recipie for disaster, even when hes not dealing with injuries to his hand and shoulder.

But when he didn't have pressure (a lot of the game) he didn't deliver. So why is the assumption he would if he had less pressure?

OL play doesnt make good QB play, it can only ruin it. QB has to see things. Jimmy didnt. Why I hold him more responsible because the plays were there to be made.

Huh? When Aaron Rodgers is standing back there for 10s that doesn't make for good QB play? When Brady isn't touched in a Superbowl, that's doesn't lead to better QB play? LOL