49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

even if the numbers show no difference .. we should break it down

like TE, do we blame the scheme for Kittles injuries ?

No. But if all the TE's keep getting injured over 6 years, you can start saying there's something going on here. If you don't think it's because of the system, they certainly happen within it so you'd have to come up with a better theory.

TEs Kittle

his injuries were due to bad passes away from the OL, a bad landing on a jump ball.. a very low block at the knees.. how is another system different to prevent these injuries ?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

even if the numbers show no difference .. we should break it down

like TE, do we blame the scheme for Kittles injuries ?

No. But if all the TE's keep getting injured over 6 years, you can start saying there's something going on here. If you don't think it's because of the system, they certainly happen within it so you'd have to come up with a better theory.

TEs Kittle

his injuries were due to bad passes away from the OL, a bad landing on a jump ball.. a very low block at the knees.. how is another system different to prevent these injuries ?

Ktitle isn't the only TE here. They've all been injured here multiple times.

But yes, a hospital ball, you want to look at everything. Of course.

But if he and the other TE's over 6 years are getting hurt run blocking, on reverses, on short passes including hospital balls, etc. then you can start to raise up some red flags and theories.

What's the starting 5?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

even if the numbers show no difference .. we should break it down

like TE, do we blame the scheme for Kittles injuries ?

No. But if all the TE's keep getting injured over 6 years, you can start saying there's something going on here. If you don't think it's because of the system, they certainly happen within it so you'd have to come up with a better theory.

TEs Kittle

his injuries were due to bad passes away from the OL, a bad landing on a jump ball.. a very low block at the knees.. how is another system different to prevent these injuries ?

I would like to see a breakdown of this because the #s aren't jiving

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

The theory wasn't in comparison to other teams. It was noting this system here. There's no secret this system here eats through OL, TE's and RB's.

Even QB's. But that's another topic. Haha.

it is a secret.. could you explain how exactly the scheme injures players ? maybe choose a player and go over it ? i brought up kittle

It's not a 'secret' because Kyle has to carry more more bodies at those positions just to get through a season. In fact he even called it a necessity now.

As to how that stacks up with other teams, I can't spreak to that. I'm discussing what happens here and how Kyle has adjusted accordingly.

Also, if you want to look at the grand volume of OL, TE's and RB's who've taken snaps since 2017, I recommend football outsiders as they also cover the OL snaps too (many don't for some odd reason).

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

The theory wasn't in comparison to other teams. It was noting this system here. There's no secret this system here eats through OL, TE's and RB's.

Even QB's. But that's another topic. Haha.

We have had the same #1 TE since the beginning of the Kyle Shanahan era. Are you really arguing about numbers 2's who don't see a lot of playing time?

As far as RB's, I would argue that no other system in the NFL has proven to get as much production from UDRFA RB's than Kyle. Who cares if they only last 1-2 seasons? They are cheap and seem to be a dime a dozen for this system.

When it comes to OL, it would be disingenuous to diminish the importance of comparing the rate of turnover with this team/system and other teams/systems.

Originally posted by NCommand:
So there's a strong longitudinal correlation to this system eating through OL, TE's and RB's but it's not logical enough for you to make a causation or come up with an alternate correlation theory.

Got it.

The burden is on the person who postulates the theory to prove it. That's how science works. When you don't do that you get leeching as an acceptable medical procedure.

Originally posted by NCommand:
No. But if all the TE's keep getting injured over 6 years, you can start saying there's something going on here. If you don't think it's because of the system, they certainly happen within it so you'd have to come up with a better theory.

If the theory is based on THIS system then shouldn't you compare it to OTHER systems if the conclusion is THIS system is the problem.

Do you even know what a control group is?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So there's a strong longitudinal correlation to this system eating through OL, TE's and RB's but it's not logical enough for you to make a causation or come up with an alternate correlation theory.

Got it.

The burden is on the person who postulates the theory to prove it. That's how science works. When you don't do that you get leeching as an acceptable medical procedure.

Have fun.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/snap-counts

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
No. But if all the TE's keep getting injured over 6 years, you can start saying there's something going on here. If you don't think it's because of the system, they certainly happen within it so you'd have to come up with a better theory.

If the theory is based on THIS system then shouldn't you compare it to OTHER systems if the conclusion is THIS system is the problem.

Do you even know what a control group is?

Why? Kyle's own roster tells you the truth.

You were recently arguing Kyle didn't need more than 2 RB's. Now he keeps 5 on the 53. You of all people should see that. And he'd likely kept Sermon and Hasty and maybe another on the PS because there's a real chance he'd have tap into that unit again.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Why? Kyle's own roster tells you the truth.

You were recently arguing Kyle didn't need more than 2 RB's. Now he keeps 5 on the 53. You of all people should see that. And he'd likely kept Sermon and Hasty and maybe another on the PS because there's a real chance he'd have tap into that unit again.

He didn't keep 5

You were the one arguing the scheme is suddenly different than in Atlanta. Again burden of proof is on you.

Why can't he just really like the players and not want to lose them? It's only zero sum to protect against injury.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Why? Kyle's own roster tells you the truth.

You were recently arguing Kyle didn't need more than 2 RB's. Now he keeps 5 on the 53. You of all people should see that. And he'd likely kept Sermon and Hasty and maybe another on the PS because there's a real chance he'd have tap into that unit again.

He didn't keep 5

You were the one arguing the scheme is suddenly different than in Atlanta. Again burden of proof is on you.

Why can't he just really like the players and not want to lose them? It's only zero sum to protect against injury.

Nor did either of them make it onto the PS.

Snap count proves nothing. Go breakdown the injuries and where they occurred
just looking at TEs and games played over last 4 years shows it's not eating through TEs. Kittle aside since his injuries had zero to do with scheme

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

The theory wasn't in comparison to other teams. It was noting this system here. There's no secret this system here eats through OL, TE's and RB's.

Even QB's. But that's another topic. Haha.

We have had the same #1 TE since the beginning of the Kyle Shanahan era. Are you really arguing about numbers 2's who don't see a lot of playing time?

As far as RB's, I would argue that no other system in the NFL has proven to get as much production from UDRFA RB's than Kyle. Who cares if they only last 1-2 seasons? They are cheap and seem to be a dime a dozen for this system.

When it comes to OL, it would be disingenuous to diminish the importance of comparing the rate of turnover with this team/system and other teams/systems.

No, I'm theorizing the volume of players used to execute and get through a season at those 3 positions over the past 6 years is incredibly large. That speaks to volume and complexity within the system. What, how and how much can = more risk of injury. You obviously see that now with OL but you can't with RB and TE and by default "the offensive system?" Or philosophy within it?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years. But how does it compare to other regimes around the NFL? If we don't have numbers to actually compare than it is nothing more than an assumption that we go through them at a higher rate.

The theory wasn't in comparison to other teams. It was noting this system here. There's no secret this system here eats through OL, TE's and RB's.

Even QB's. But that's another topic. Haha.

We have had the same #1 TE since the beginning of the Kyle Shanahan era. Are you really arguing about numbers 2's who don't see a lot of playing time?

As far as RB's, I would argue that no other system in the NFL has proven to get as much production from UDRFA RB's than Kyle. Who cares if they only last 1-2 seasons? They are cheap and seem to be a dime a dozen for this system.

When it comes to OL, it would be disingenuous to diminish the importance of comparing the rate of turnover with this team/system and other teams/systems.

No, I'm theorizing the volume of players used to execute and get through a season at those 3 positions over the past 6 years is incredibly large. That speaks to volume and complexity within the system. What, how and how much can = more risk of injury. You obviously see that now with OL but you can't with RB and TE and by default "the offensive system?" Or philosophy within it?

Incredibly large compared to what? What have I obviously seen now with the OL? I see players get hurt every Sunday. No team is immune. You know damn well I can be persuaded to take another stance. If you have actual numbers to compare than I would be inclined to side with you if your argument was proven by statistical analysis.