49ers Offensive Line

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.

You guys need to spend more time in the injury thread. Not only has Kyle had to compensate by adding 4 to 5 RB's on the 53 but he's had to tap into the PS on the regular as well and bring in FA's off the streets over the past 6 years.

If you need me to research that for you, you might not be paying attention to this team much.

Volume. Reliance.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

Your own quote.

Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years.

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

You guys need to spend more time in the injury thread. Not only has Kyle had to compensate by adding 4 to 5 RB's on the 53 but he's had to tap into the PS on the regular as well and bring in FA's off the streets over the past 6 years.

If you need me to research that for you, you might not be paying attention to this team much.

Volume. Reliance.

Teams that are more pass-centric tend to carry more WR's and other pass catchers while teams who are more run-centric tend to carry more RB's and TE's. I thought that was common knowledge?

idk.. the System theory isn't really convincing. saying run blocking, reverses and short passes are the cause sounds more like it's just football

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
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

Snap counts show the volume of players who've had to play to get through the season (no matter where they came from: 53, off I.R., PS, in season pick-up). Given we know Kyle hasn't benched anyone for poor performance, you can gather that the volume of OL, TE & RB's used over the 5 years (injuries) since 2017 speaks to why he carries such high numbers of OL, TE's and RB's now...both on the 53 and PS.

There was one year we used every single player on the PS. Literally had to keep restocking it. Barrows was just talking about that year. LOL. Rough year.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

You guys need to spend more time in the injury thread. Not only has Kyle had to compensate by adding 4 to 5 RB's on the 53 but he's had to tap into the PS on the regular as well and bring in FA's off the streets over the past 6 years.

If you need me to research that for you, you might not be paying attention to this team much.

Volume. Reliance.

Teams that are more pass-centric tend to carry more WR's and other pass catchers while teams who are more run-centric tend to carry more RB's and TE's. I thought that was common knowledge?

Naturally. And by default, you run through more of them. So, yes, the system/philosophy we have here naturally, eats through those position groups.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

Your own quote.

Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years.

Compared to what though? Its relevant to know whether its excessive or in line with the rest of the league. I could say $1000.00 is a lot of money but compared to someone who makes 200k+ a year, it might just be a normal weekend with the boys.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
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

Snap counts show the volume of players who've had to play to get through the season (no matter where they came from: 53, off I.R., PS, in season pick-up). Given we know Kyle hasn't benched anyone for poor performance, you can gather that the volume of OL, TE & RB's used over the 5 years (injuries) since 2017 speaks to why he carries such high numbers of OL, TE's and RB's now...both on the 53 and PS.

There was one year we used every single player on the PS. Literally had to keep restocking it. Barrows was just talking about that year. LOL. Rough year.

You can go through and see TEs have not been churned through due to system.
As far as the OL and RB, again you would need to go through how each of these injuries occurred to prove it is scheme related. And yes using other teams schemes as a pint of reference absolutely factors into this.
Does offensive scheme also carry over to injuries to the rest of the team that are not on offensive side?
Again, you have too many theories out there presented as fact. I've seen you say on various occasions it's player training or medical staff or Kyle and soft practices or injury prone players or even the DJs fault lol.

@NCommand, if Brunskill is activated, what does the starting line look like?

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

Your own quote.

Its obvious we have gone through a lot of O lineman in the past 6 years.

Compared to what though? Its relevant to know whether its excessive or in line with the rest of the league. I could say $1000.00 is a lot of money but compared to someone who makes 200k+ a year, it might just be a normal weekend with the boys.

If you feel the need to compare our system and injuries to others, you're welcomed too. The Rams run a pass centric version of Kyle's offense and they are annually the #1 healthiest team in the league. My theory was never comparing us to others.

Like injuries, it's recognizing what happens here annually in this system and protecting yourself for the inevitable. Kyle is getting it. It doesn't sound like our fans are there quite yet?

You can also look across the league to see who carries 10 OL (only need to carry 8 active on game days and that includes call ups from the PS), 4-6 RB's + FB and 3-4 TE's in volume combination.

Kyle chooses the 53 and he's telling you how he's going to play it and how much he needs to make it through the year doing it.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
@NCommand, if Brunskill is activated, what does the starting line look like?

Hmmm, I guess that all depends on how McGlinchey is doing with his pain tolerance. If he can go, I think Brunskill is a partially healthy scratch to buy him more time to heal up his hammy. I think he's our 6th man right now but he has to get healthy first.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
@NCommand, if Brunskill is activated, what does the starting line look like?

LT: Trent Williams
LG: Aaron Banks
C: Jake Brendel
RG: Spencer Burford
RT: Dontae Johnson

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
@NCommand, if Brunskill is activated, what does the starting line look like?

LT: Trent Williams
LG: Aaron Banks
C: Jake Brendel
RG: Spencer Burford
RT: Dontae Johnson

Zing

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
@NCommand, if Brunskill is activated, what does the starting line look like?

Hmmm, I guess that all depends on how McGlinchey is doing with his pain tolerance. If he can go, I think Brunskill is a partially healthy scratch to buy him more time to heal up his hammy. I think he's our 6th man right now but he has to get healthy first.

My perspective is McGlinchey is a play away from being gone. His ability to be healthy this year will dictate what kind of money he'll command, so he's obviously motivated to be healthy, Im just very skeptical of assuming McGlinchey can play any substantial amount this season.

And I guess I agree with you that's he's #6 (first man up) at probably every position.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
You can go through and see TEs have not been churned through due to system.
As far as the OL and RB, again you would need to go through how each of these injuries occurred to prove it is scheme related. And yes using other teams schemes as a pint of reference absolutely factors into this.
Does offensive scheme also carry over to injuries to the rest of the team that are not on offensive side?
Again, you have too many theories out there presented as fact. I've seen you say on various occasions it's player training or medical staff or Kyle and soft practices or injury prone players or even the DJs fault lol.

How is a theory a fact?

Like I said, you have your own license to come to your own conclusions as well. I manage the injury thread so this theory didn't come out of nowhere. It's just something I've noticed...Kyle as well, obviously.