49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by YACBros85:
So if we decided to be the Yankees and buy up all the top FA's every year, we could with no consequence because the cap doesn't really matter?

Thats actually the Dodgers these days. Yanks actually act with a budget.

Great OL play.. but let me guess, it's only practice

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Bummer, was just highlighting this the other day when YAC provided the film.

2. Center Daniel Brunskill.
Played center with the second stringers today, which is fitting, because Jake Brendel is a better center than him. That doesn't mean Brendel is good -- he's not -- but at least he can snap the ball accurately, as opposed to Brunskill.

Brendel and Brunskill not good centers? Who would have thought. Brunskill Is decent at one position Imo, and that's not at "Center"

There's still time but if they force Brunskill to C, it may not end well.

I disagree.

Brunskill's skill set makes him a better center than guard. As a former TE, he has excellent footspeed but not great strength. That made him a good OT.
we saw that in the past when he replaced MM and Staley.

Last year he went in to guard because Compton was horrible at guard but better at OT. On balance, that was the best combo although it is arguably Brunskill's weakest position as it put him against big, strong DTs.

So, for the same reason he is a better tackle than guard, he will be a better center than guard. He won't have to have a big DT on his face immediately and can use his foot skills to pull and move to help out the rest of the OL when needed. Also, he has a lot of experience now which will pay off in PP calls which should give him the edge over Brendell.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Bummer, was just highlighting this the other day when YAC provided the film.

2. Center Daniel Brunskill.
Played center with the second stringers today, which is fitting, because Jake Brendel is a better center than him. That doesn't mean Brendel is good -- he's not -- but at least he can snap the ball accurately, as opposed to Brunskill.

Brendel and Brunskill not good centers? Who would have thought. Brunskill Is decent at one position Imo, and that's not at "Center"

There's still time but if they force Brunskill to C, it may not end well.

I disagree.

Brunskill's skill set makes him a better center than guard. As a former TE, he has excellent footspeed but not great strength. That made him a good OT.
we saw that in the past when he replaced MM and Staley.

Last year he went in to guard because Compton was horrible at guard but better at OT. On balance, that was the best combo although it is arguably Brunskill's weakest position as it put him against big, strong DTs.

So, for the same reason he is a better tackle than guard, he will be a better center than guard. He won't have to have a big DT on his face immediately and can use his foot skills to pull and move to help out the rest of the OL when needed. Also, he has a lot of experience now which will pay off in PP calls which should give him the edge over Brendell.

He was horrendous at C and is very unnatural at snapping.

But let's keep an eye on it. He's veteran savvy and the coaches seem to love him.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Great OL play.. but let me guess, it's only practice

Hell no. Always gotta call it like it is. Today sounded like a much better day for sure.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
So can we please put to rest the whole "we can't afford …." because Deebos extension with Jimmy still on the roster just blew that reason up forever with me. The next some of y'all post it as reasoning why we can acquire certain players at certain salaries need to understand cap is all about priorities NOT about ability.

There's a difference between signing a FA vs giving a guy and extension when talking about cap space. Doesn't mean they couldn't make certain salaries work though.

Agreed. If the desire is there, there's always a way to make it work. It'll still be nice to get Jimmy off the books though.

100%.
Of course there's a difference between those three (extension, FA, cap) but not as delineated as NY is implying. It is one cap and yes an extension is different than signing a FA, but it's still one cap. However what I am saying, and NY knows this, is if a team WANTS player X, they can have him. Full stop. So when John comes on the presser and says "hmm we might be able to afford" - really what's being said is "we don't feel like paying .." It's always, always about making salaries work. "We can't afford to keep" is just BS.

So if we decided to be the Yankees and buy up all the top FA's every year, we could with no consequence because the cap doesn't really matter?

Instead of that hyperbole scenario, let's give something more rational/doable a try: create some talented, stable alternatives at C or at RG without Dan Brunskill (who's a swing tackle) being either a starter or first off the bench.

I was simply trying to make sense of your statement.

if a team WANTS player X, they can have him.

So can we have any player we want or can we not have any player we want? Does the cap really matter? Does draft position not matter? Do the other teams bidding for the player not matter?

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
So can we please put to rest the whole "we can't afford …." because Deebos extension with Jimmy still on the roster just blew that reason up forever with me. The next some of y'all post it as reasoning why we can acquire certain players at certain salaries need to understand cap is all about priorities NOT about ability.

There's a difference between signing a FA vs giving a guy and extension when talking about cap space. Doesn't mean they couldn't make certain salaries work though.

Agreed. If the desire is there, there's always a way to make it work. It'll still be nice to get Jimmy off the books though.

100%.
Of course there's a difference between those three (extension, FA, cap) but not as delineated as NY is implying. It is one cap and yes an extension is different than signing a FA, but it's still one cap. However what I am saying, and NY knows this, is if a team WANTS player X, they can have him. Full stop. So when John comes on the presser and says "hmm we might be able to afford" - really what's being said is "we don't feel like paying .." It's always, always about making salaries work. "We can't afford to keep" is just BS.

just random adds, but...

1) I dont fully get why it's ignored that Ford's contract (instead of Jimmy's) was off the books before Deebo was signed. I mean,...that mattered.

2) Jimmy's not being kept after his backup was anointed as the starter. Just wouldnt be good for the locker room and him not being off the books "YET" is not in any way proof that "it can work."

I mean Jimmy's contract is alot of "could have been" money for a guy like Bosa just as an example,....but if he is here after week 1 without a major injury to our starter, then please call this post out.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
So can we please put to rest the whole "we can't afford …." because Deebos extension with Jimmy still on the roster just blew that reason up forever with me. The next some of y'all post it as reasoning why we can acquire certain players at certain salaries need to understand cap is all about priorities NOT about ability.

There's a difference between signing a FA vs giving a guy and extension when talking about cap space. Doesn't mean they couldn't make certain salaries work though.

Agreed. If the desire is there, there's always a way to make it work. It'll still be nice to get Jimmy off the books though.

100%.
Of course there's a difference between those three (extension, FA, cap) but not as delineated as NY is implying. It is one cap and yes an extension is different than signing a FA, but it's still one cap. However what I am saying, and NY knows this, is if a team WANTS player X, they can have him. Full stop. So when John comes on the presser and says "hmm we might be able to afford" - really what's being said is "we don't feel like paying .." It's always, always about making salaries work. "We can't afford to keep" is just BS.

So if we decided to be the Yankees and buy up all the top FA's every year, we could with no consequence because the cap doesn't really matter?

Instead of that hyperbole scenario, let's give something more rational/doable a try: create some talented, stable alternatives at C or at RG without Dan Brunskill (who's a swing tackle) being either a starter or first off the bench.

I was simply trying to make sense of your statement.

if a team WANTS player X, they can have him.

So can we have any player we want or can we not have any player we want? Does the cap really matter? Does draft position not matter? Do the other teams bidding for the player not matter?

The context isn't something insanely absolute but in the context of the NFL. The statement is a retort to John Lynch saying "we can't afford x player" instead of saying "we don't want to pay x player."

And every player has a price. It's about what a team is willing to pay.

It bothers you that much the way he words it? The cap is is a balancing act. There are ways around things but you can only do so much. We could have done more in FA if we had more cap space to work with. We had to restructure quite a few deals to free up money to really even have an off season.

What I have learned from others in the last 3-4 months is that when a team extends a player, the years are added on and don't count against the cap the current year because the player is technically still on their previous contract. Which had already been accounted for.

When it comes to FA, things are different. You need cap to be able to spend in FA. Something we didn't have a lot of this year. Next year though, we should be rolling over quite a bit of funds. I expect next March to be a little more entertaining. I also expect them to be a little more aggressive in this next draft.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
It bothers you that much the way he words it? The cap is is a balancing act. There are ways around things but you can only do so much. We could have done more in FA if we had more cap space to work with. We had to restructure quite a few deals to free up money to really even have an off season.

What I have learned from others in the last 3-4 months is that when a team extends a player, the years are added on and don't count against the cap the current year because the player is technically still on their previous contract. Which had already been accounted for.

When it comes to FA, things are different. You need cap to be able to spend in FA. Something we didn't have a lot of this year. Next year though, we should be rolling over quite a bit of funds. I expect next March to be a little more entertaining. I also expect them to be a little more aggressive in this next draft.

You and NC are always in before the edits!!

Damn it! I have to get better about that.

I personally love what the niners are doing with the OL. They are drafting lots of players who playe OT in college and pushing them to guard for a while. They also are going to go with Banks and Burford at Guard. If this works, they will be settled for a few years for interior OL at a low cap rate. Keep in mind Brunskill can be swing tackle back up off bench. The kid out of ASU back up center to Brendel.

All in all I am hoping someone can step up and be able to play RT. Not a fan of overpaying for Mcglinchey

Originally posted by 9erred:
I personally love what the niners are doing with the OL. They are drafting lots of players who playe OT in college and pushing them to guard for a while. They also are going to go with Banks and Burford at Guard. If this works, they will be settled for a few years for interior OL at a low cap rate. Keep in mind Brunskill can be swing tackle back up off bench. The kid out of ASU back up center to Brendel.

All in all I am hoping someone can step up and be able to play RT. Not a fan of overpaying for Mcglinchey

Very very unlikely they pay MM no matter how well he plays in a contract year.

Ryan Ramczyk - $19,200,000 APY
Brian O'Neill - $18,500,000
Lane Johnson - $18,000,000
Braden Smith - $17,500,000
Taylor Moton - $17,000,000
Chukwuma Okorafor - $9,750,000

BTW, what a drop off from Moton to Okorafor. LOL

They'll be drafting a first round RT again.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Bummer, was just highlighting this the other day when YAC provided the film.

2. Center Daniel Brunskill.
Played center with the second stringers today, which is fitting, because Jake Brendel is a better center than him. That doesn't mean Brendel is good -- he's not -- but at least he can snap the ball accurately, as opposed to Brunskill.

Brendel and Brunskill not good centers? Who would have thought. Brunskill Is decent at one position Imo, and that's not at "Center"

There's still time but if they force Brunskill to C, it may not end well.

I disagree.

Brunskill's skill set makes him a better center than guard. As a former TE, he has excellent footspeed but not great strength. That made him a good OT.
we saw that in the past when he replaced MM and Staley.

Last year he went in to guard because Compton was horrible at guard but better at OT. On balance, that was the best combo although it is arguably Brunskill's weakest position as it put him against big, strong DTs.

So, for the same reason he is a better tackle than guard, he will be a better center than guard. He won't have to have a big DT on his face immediately and can use his foot skills to pull and move to help out the rest of the OL when needed. Also, he has a lot of experience now which will pay off in PP calls which should give him the edge over Brendell.

AGree! Great minds think alike!

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Sickaa:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Bummer, was just highlighting this the other day when YAC provided the film.

2. Center Daniel Brunskill.
Played center with the second stringers today, which is fitting, because Jake Brendel is a better center than him. That doesn't mean Brendel is good -- he's not -- but at least he can snap the ball accurately, as opposed to Brunskill.

Brendel and Brunskill not good centers? Who would have thought. Brunskill Is decent at one position Imo, and that's not at "Center"

There's still time but if they force Brunskill to C, it may not end well.

I disagree.

Brunskill's skill set makes him a better center than guard. As a former TE, he has excellent footspeed but not great strength. That made him a good OT.
we saw that in the past when he replaced MM and Staley.

Last year he went in to guard because Compton was horrible at guard but better at OT. On balance, that was the best combo although it is arguably Brunskill's weakest position as it put him against big, strong DTs.

So, for the same reason he is a better tackle than guard, he will be a better center than guard. He won't have to have a big DT on his face immediately and can use his foot skills to pull and move to help out the rest of the OL when needed. Also, he has a lot of experience now which will pay off in PP calls which should give him the edge over Brendell.

He was horrendous at C and is very unnatural at snapping.

But let's keep an eye on it. He's veteran savvy and the coaches seem to love him.

It's a pretty simple analysis for me: does he look remarkably better than 2020? If no, sign someone. If yes then willing to see what happens.

There's film on Brunskill at this position and that's where you have to start, not by what people might feel he does. 2020 was so forgettable I'm willing to bet very from NT folks have even looked at much of the film from 2020.

You can't really gauge experience and *durability* from game film.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
So can we please put to rest the whole "we can't afford …." because Deebos extension with Jimmy still on the roster just blew that reason up forever with me. The next some of y'all post it as reasoning why we can acquire certain players at certain salaries need to understand cap is all about priorities NOT about ability.

There's a difference between signing a FA vs giving a guy and extension when talking about cap space. Doesn't mean they couldn't make certain salaries work though.

Agreed. If the desire is there, there's always a way to make it work. It'll still be nice to get Jimmy off the books though.

100%.
Of course there's a difference between those three (extension, FA, cap) but not as delineated as NY is implying. It is one cap and yes an extension is different than signing a FA, but it's still one cap. However what I am saying, and NY knows this, is if a team WANTS player X, they can have him. Full stop. So when John comes on the presser and says "hmm we might be able to afford" - really what's being said is "we don't feel like paying .." It's always, always about making salaries work. "We can't afford to keep" is just BS.

So if we decided to be the Yankees and buy up all the top FA's every year, we could with no consequence because the cap doesn't really matter?

Instead of that hyperbole scenario, let's give something more rational/doable a try: create some talented, stable alternatives at C or at RG without Dan Brunskill (who's a swing tackle) being either a starter or first off the bench.

I was simply trying to make sense of your statement.

if a team WANTS player X, they can have him.

So can we have any player we want or can we not have any player we want? Does the cap really matter? Does draft position not matter? Do the other teams bidding for the player not matter?

The context isn't something insanely absolute but in the context of the NFL. The statement is a retort to John Lynch saying "we can't afford x player" instead of saying "we don't want to pay x player."

And every player has a price. It's about what a team is willing to pay.

It bothers you that much the way he words it? The cap is is a balancing act. There are ways around things but you can only do so much. We could have done more in FA if we had more cap space to work with. We had to restructure quite a few deals to free up money to really even have an off season.

What I have learned from others in the last 3-4 months is that when a team extends a player, the years are added on and don't count against the cap the current year because the player is technically still on their previous contract. Which had already been accounted for.

When it comes to FA, things are different. You need cap to be able to spend in FA. Something we didn't have a lot of this year. Next year though, we should be rolling over quite a bit of funds. I expect next March to be a little more entertaining. I also expect them to be a little more aggressive in this next draft.

AGree. If you go back to 1994, the 49ers didn't suffer cap hell in1994, it was *after* - somewhere in 1996-1998 (I think) where they really lost a lot of players because they couldn't keep them. I think - Lott and Craig being one of the first casualties of the cap hell, back then.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Hearing good things about:

Buford
Poe
Skule

Encouraging. If we can get them all aligned and improve that technique each practice because the ability sounds like it's there. However, I'm VERY worried about what I hear about Brunskill at C.

Kind of bummed Banks is having anchoring issues in PP after a red shirt year. He's given up some more in 11v11 too. It's something to keep an eye on.