49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by thl408:
Do injury free OLmen come to SF and get injured more often? That's something to consider. There are so many variables that I think we'd need 10-15 years of data to find any association between scheme and injuries.

100%. Let's see some data before making definitive statements.

A theory is not a definitive statement. Also, it's football. Good luck finding anything that's a clear causation and not just correlation.

I think what we're doing with 'scheme causes injuries' is hypothesizing.

About half the league uses some zone concepts in their scheme, so I don't get that one.

Since 2019, the 49ers have noticeably increased the variety of their run game. 2017 and 2018 was high volume of outside zone from what I remember. I do remember at the start of 2019 noticing a real expansion of the run game. I did some digging and saw that the 49er guards have been very healthy.

LTomlinson, 0 games injured since 2019
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TomlLa01.htm

Mike Person missed two games in 2019 (none in 2018, left team after 2019).
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PersMi00.htm

Brunskill 0 games missed as a guard in 2020 and 2021
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrunDa00.htm

So perhaps it's the Center and Tackles that are the only ones getting injured due to scheme, or that scheme doesn't affect injuries. Again, too little data to tell, but it seems odd that guards stay healthy while Center and Tackles don't. IMO, I don't think this 49er scheme is a big factor in OL injuries - it's simply, 'dumb luck' or 'injuries happen', until we can actually get valid data stating otherwise.

NC, maybe we can refine the hypothesis to '49ers scheme causes injuries to Tackles and Center', but now it seems we are trying to cram things to force it to make sense.

Haha. Let's do it.

Good work!

What's remarkable about this finding is that per MM, the G position is the 2nd most demanding position on the field. Go figure...

Originally posted by Disp:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
According to this chart. Out of the 5 playoff runs only 2 of them were we a top 10 in health with one of them being #1 healthiest team in the league. Neither of those 2 top 10 healthiest teams resulted in a SB win. The 2012 team was the healthiest we've been and stacked with talent and solid coaching and we couldn't get over the hump. I am just saying that that chart proves absolutely nothing. Anyone claiming that if we were healthier we would have won 3 more SB's is a fallacy.

In 2012 our 2 most important players on defense, Justin Smith and Aldon, were both playing shoulder/triceps tears going onto the playoffs. It completely changed our defense and we started getting torched because there was no pass rush.

Yeah that was such a punch in the dick. Healthiest team in the league, only 2 key players hurt....... but those 2 key players are what made the whole defense go.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
No idea what random said but whatever team you're talking about, I'm sure, hasn't had the injury history this OL has had over the past 6 years.

Even Kyle has recognized it carrying 5-6 backs, 4 TE's and now, 10 OL.

If you can't see that this scheme eats through this group, you're blind.

Tampa's OL is demolished by injuries. Clearly it's all scheme…Dallas has dealt with injuries to their OL for years. Clearly it's scheme. Giants have dealt with a ton of injuries to their OL, must be just the scheme. I was told the reason the Pats weren't doing hot down the stretch was because lineman were injured. Scheme no doubt lol. No one agrees with your theory man. Damn near everyone in the league runs zone blocking concepts. Damn near everyone runs inside/gap as well. It isn't all one scheme anymore.

if you can't see that scheme is NOT the main reason for OL injuries then YOU are the one that's blind. This is such fake news and made up b******t with no real data to back it up. You're wrong plain and simple.

HERE.

As to other teams, do they have regular annual OL injuries within a consistent scheme? Have they used 32 unique OL in 5 years as a result? Now carry 10 OL, 4-6 Backs and 4 TE's to compensate for this trend to carry out their run-centric philosophy?

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I do genuinely think they are doing everything they can.

We've had many theories in the injury thread including they're too soft on them. Here's an example. From Harbaugh to Kyle in AGL. 2014 was when all the veterans physically broke down.

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)

So damn impressive, if we just had 1 or 2 healthier players 2012, 2019 & 2021 we would've had 8 SBs

That doesn't add up. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We went to the SB with the healthiest and the 27 healthiest teams and both outcomes were the same. Does being the healthiest team make it easier to get to the SB? Perhaps. But it doesn't guarantee anything.

I barely remember 2012 so can't speak to that ATM but 2019 and 2021 were incredibly rare. There is a very strong correlation of health to making the playoffs. We were the only team to have that high of AGL to make an NFCCG and Superbowl.

If we can get up around 12th, we'd be in much better position!

According to this chart. Out of the 5 playoff runs only 2 of them were we a top 10 in health with one of them being #1 healthiest team in the league. Neither of those 2 top 10 healthiest teams resulted in a SB win. The 2012 team was the healthiest we've been and stacked with talent and solid coaching and we couldn't get over the hump. I am just saying that that chart proves absolutely nothing. Anyone claiming that if we were healthier we would have won 3 more SB's is a fallacy.

I don't see a chart but PM me your email address and I'll send it to you. There's a cut off line. Under it, teams average 6 wins a year and above it, 9. 9 gives you a real shot at the playoffs. The teams under that line that still made the playoffs (outliers) all had veteran QB's but none of them got to or won a Superbowl. Only we got to a Superbowl (and still lost). It's about a strong correlation to turnovers and wins-losses. That's about as strong as you'll find for football correlations.

AGL only looks at the season overall but IIRC, you're right about the 2012 playoff team. That was our best shot and to your point, doesn't guarantee you win. Just a better shot.

I'll shoot you my email. I just don't see a strong correlation with the rankings you posted 6 posts up. We made it to a SB with the healthiest team in the league and with one of the least healthiest teams in the league. We had an opportunity to win both games at the end and failed. To say it was because of health just seems like a stretch with the information you provided.

My original post was not directed at you though. It was directed at elguapo's post.

"if we just had 1 or 2 healthier players 2012, 2019 & 2021 we would've had 8 SBs"

That statement is not a true statement given the facts. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We were 1 bad call and a few non calls by the refs away from winning it in 2019 inspite of being 27th healthiest team in the league.

Gotcha!

Originally posted by MrGriz:

Originally posted by Disp:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
According to this chart. Out of the 5 playoff runs only 2 of them were we a top 10 in health with one of them being #1 healthiest team in the league. Neither of those 2 top 10 healthiest teams resulted in a SB win. The 2012 team was the healthiest we've been and stacked with talent and solid coaching and we couldn't get over the hump. I am just saying that that chart proves absolutely nothing. Anyone claiming that if we were healthier we would have won 3 more SB's is a fallacy.

In 2012 our 2 most important players on defense, Justin Smith and Aldon, were both playing shoulder/triceps tears going onto the playoffs. It completely changed our defense and we started getting torched because there was no pass rush.

Yeah that was such a punch in the dick. Healthiest team in the league, only 2 key players hurt....... but those 2 key players are what made the whole defense go.

Both Dennis Pitta and Dannell Ellerbe were dealing with injuries for the Ravens going into that SB. As I recall, Haloti Ngata got knocked of the game as well. Lets just stop making excuses because inspite of injuries we still had a chance to win the game and just like in 2019, the 2012 offense failed to execute when we needed them to the most.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by MrGriz:

Originally posted by Disp:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
According to this chart. Out of the 5 playoff runs only 2 of them were we a top 10 in health with one of them being #1 healthiest team in the league. Neither of those 2 top 10 healthiest teams resulted in a SB win. The 2012 team was the healthiest we've been and stacked with talent and solid coaching and we couldn't get over the hump. I am just saying that that chart proves absolutely nothing. Anyone claiming that if we were healthier we would have won 3 more SB's is a fallacy.

In 2012 our 2 most important players on defense, Justin Smith and Aldon, were both playing shoulder/triceps tears going onto the playoffs. It completely changed our defense and we started getting torched because there was no pass rush.

Yeah that was such a punch in the dick. Healthiest team in the league, only 2 key players hurt....... but those 2 key players are what made the whole defense go.

Both Dennis Pitta and Dannell Ellerbe were dealing with injuries for the Ravens going into that SB. As I recall, Haloti Ngata got knocked of the game as well. Lets just stop making excuses because inspite of injuries we still had a chance to win the game and just like in 2019, the 2012 offense failed to execute when we needed them to the most.

you should ease off trying to be confrontational. I wasn't "making excuses" for anything, merely recalling the sinking feeling of hearing that two of our best players were hurt. Calm the f down.

Originally posted by NCommand:
HERE.

As to other teams, do they have regular annual OL injuries within a consistent scheme? Have they used 32 unique OL in 5 years as a result? Now carry 10 OL, 4-6 Backs and 4 TE's to compensate for this trend to carry out their run-centric philosophy?

You should stop

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
That doesn't add up. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We went to the SB with the healthiest and the 27 healthiest teams and both outcomes were the same. Does being the healthiest team make it easier to get to the SB? Perhaps. But it doesn't guarantee anything.

Well nothing in a game where human intervention determines outcomes is guaranteed, however like the draft, you're banking on probability. It's more likely you'll make the SB when you're healthy just like higher picks in the draft are more talented and more likely to succeed at the the next level. It's not a guarantee, but you're not going to get many teams to be in favor of odds that work against them.

You all are missing my entire point. That chart that NC posted proves nothing. Anyone using it to make a point about why we haven't won a SB is spreading speculative bs. Especiallly when you don't take into account the health of our opponent in those games.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by thl408:
Do injury free OLmen come to SF and get injured more often? That's something to consider. There are so many variables that I think we'd need 10-15 years of data to find any association between scheme and injuries.

100%. Let's see some data before making definitive statements.

A theory is not a definitive statement. Also, it's football. Good luck finding anything that's a clear causation and not just correlation.

I think what we're doing with 'scheme causes injuries' is hypothesizing.

About half the league uses some zone concepts in their scheme, so I don't get that one.

Since 2019, the 49ers have noticeably increased the variety of their run game. 2017 and 2018 was high volume of outside zone from what I remember. I do remember at the start of 2019 noticing a real expansion of the run game. I did some digging and saw that the 49er guards have been very healthy.

LTomlinson, 0 games injured since 2019
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TomlLa01.htm

Mike Person missed two games in 2019 (none in 2018, left team after 2019).
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PersMi00.htm

Brunskill 0 games missed as a guard in 2020 and 2021
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrunDa00.htm

So perhaps it's the Center and Tackles that are the only ones getting injured due to scheme, or that scheme doesn't affect injuries. Again, too little data to tell, but it seems odd that guards stay healthy while Center and Tackles don't. IMO, I don't think this 49er scheme is a big factor in OL injuries - it's simply, 'dumb luck' or 'injuries happen', until we can actually get valid data stating otherwise.

NC, maybe we can refine the hypothesis to '49ers scheme causes injuries to Tackles and Center', but now it seems we are trying to cram things to force it to make sense.

This. How about we don't give big contracts to centers that have a history of being injured? It's just weird to me, if a guy gets his leg rolled up how does that have anything to do with scheme? It doesn't…it's part of playing the position.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I wrote down your original projection/guestimate with all of ours at the time.

If you're changing it now, that's cool.

No need for you to take offense to your own projection.

And tossing out 500-550 passing attempts is still bottom of the league lol. We had 515 passing attempts last yr. Having 550 passing attempts would put them 20th in the league in passing. There's nothing to change dude. It's still not some high end passing stats if they throw 550 times next yr.

LOL. You're debating with yourself here. Literally.

But 550 to 450 IS pass-centric...for us.

No you are lol. You're talking about 550 passing attempts like it's some massive number, but if you go look at passing attempts last yr it's not….and they had 515 passing attempts not 450. Use the correct numbers dude.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I wrote down your original projection/guestimate with all of ours at the time.

If you're changing it now, that's cool.

No need for you to take offense to your own projection.

And tossing out 500-550 passing attempts is still bottom of the league lol. We had 515 passing attempts last yr. Having 550 passing attempts would put them 20th in the league in passing. There's nothing to change dude. It's still not some high end passing stats if they throw 550 times next yr.

LOL. You're debating with yourself here. Literally.

But 550 to 450 IS pass-centric...for us.

No you are lol. You're talking about 550 passing attempts like it's some massive number, but if you go look at passing attempts last yr it's not….and they had 515 passing attempts not 450. Use the correct numbers dude.

This is hilarious. 808 asked who in here thought we'd become pass centric now with Trey (e.g. higher than what we've typically been doing). I noted of the group, who made predictions (for fun), you had the highest by far. It sounds like you're readjusting down after seeing we're keeping 10 OL, 5 RB's and 4 TE's. You're getting all worked up over your own prediction and a non-story.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:
HERE.

As to other teams, do they have regular annual OL injuries within a consistent scheme? Have they used 32 unique OL in 5 years as a result? Now carry 10 OL, 4-6 Backs and 4 TE's to compensate for this trend to carry out their run-centric philosophy?

You should stop

No surprise he didn't go do his research.

Maybe you could. LOL

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
That doesn't add up. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We went to the SB with the healthiest and the 27 healthiest teams and both outcomes were the same. Does being the healthiest team make it easier to get to the SB? Perhaps. But it doesn't guarantee anything.

Well nothing in a game where human intervention determines outcomes is guaranteed, however like the draft, you're banking on probability. It's more likely you'll make the SB when you're healthy just like higher picks in the draft are more talented and more likely to succeed at the the next level. It's not a guarantee, but you're not going to get many teams to be in favor of odds that work against them.

You all are missing my entire point. That chart that NC posted proves nothing. Anyone using it to make a point about why we haven't won a SB is spreading speculative bs. Especiallly when you don't take into account the health of our opponent in those games.

TBF, the AGL was noted in response to NinerBuff who was discussing thoughts on why we've gone through so many OL, TE, and RB's in this scheme. Did we practice too hard? I posted the AGL season end results so he could see the differences in Harbaugh/Fangio to Kyle+. You can see the Harbaugh era was our most healthy by far but the price was, as they got older, they all physically broke. Here, it's Caution City and relying on unorthodox numbers at positions (PS + Street FA's) to get through a season.

Obviously the healthy you are the better shot you've got as I showed you the correlation of team injuries to playoffs.

I agree with your original premise with elguapo and yes, you should look at the opponent too.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by thl408:
Do injury free OLmen come to SF and get injured more often? That's something to consider. There are so many variables that I think we'd need 10-15 years of data to find any association between scheme and injuries.

100%. Let's see some data before making definitive statements.

A theory is not a definitive statement. Also, it's football. Good luck finding anything that's a clear causation and not just correlation.

I think what we're doing with 'scheme causes injuries' is hypothesizing.

About half the league uses some zone concepts in their scheme, so I don't get that one.

Since 2019, the 49ers have noticeably increased the variety of their run game. 2017 and 2018 was high volume of outside zone from what I remember. I do remember at the start of 2019 noticing a real expansion of the run game. I did some digging and saw that the 49er guards have been very healthy.

LTomlinson, 0 games injured since 2019
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TomlLa01.htm

Mike Person missed two games in 2019 (none in 2018, left team after 2019).
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PersMi00.htm

Brunskill 0 games missed as a guard in 2020 and 2021
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BrunDa00.htm

So perhaps it's the Center and Tackles that are the only ones getting injured due to scheme, or that scheme doesn't affect injuries. Again, too little data to tell, but it seems odd that guards stay healthy while Center and Tackles don't. IMO, I don't think this 49er scheme is a big factor in OL injuries - it's simply, 'dumb luck' or 'injuries happen', until we can actually get valid data stating otherwise.

NC, maybe we can refine the hypothesis to '49ers scheme causes injuries to Tackles and Center', but now it seems we are trying to cram things to force it to make sense.

This. How about we don't give big contracts to centers that have a history of being injured? It's just weird to me, if a guy gets his leg rolled up how does that have anything to do with scheme? It doesn't…it's part of playing the position.

So far you're the only one who's said that.

Going back many pages I listed the grand number of unique OL, TE and RB's needed to run this system HERE over the past 5 years. Nobody said an injury like this is part of that. You're focusing on one example while completely missing the point/theory/hypothesis.

With the numbers Kyle is keeping, he's clearly recognized the point/theory/hypothesis himself while a few of you bebate me otherwise. Which is fine...it was just a theory/hypothesis and not stated as fact (despite the #'s).

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
That doesn't add up. We had the healthiest team in 2012 and still lost the SB. We went to the SB with the healthiest and the 27 healthiest teams and both outcomes were the same. Does being the healthiest team make it easier to get to the SB? Perhaps. But it doesn't guarantee anything.

Well nothing in a game where human intervention determines outcomes is guaranteed, however like the draft, you're banking on probability. It's more likely you'll make the SB when you're healthy just like higher picks in the draft are more talented and more likely to succeed at the the next level. It's not a guarantee, but you're not going to get many teams to be in favor of odds that work against them.

You all are missing my entire point. That chart that NC posted proves nothing. Anyone using it to make a point about why we haven't won a SB is spreading speculative bs. Especiallly when you don't take into account the health of our opponent in those games.

TBF, the AGL was noted in response to NinerBuff who was discussing thoughts on why we've gone through so many OL, TE, and RB's in this scheme. Did we practice too hard? I posted the AGL season end results so he could see the differences in Harbaugh/Fangio to Kyle+. You can see the Harbaugh era was our most healthy by far but the price was, as they got older, they all physically broke. Here, it's Caution City and relying on unorthodox numbers at positions (PS + Street FA's) to get through a season.

Obviously the healthy you are the better shot you've got as I showed you the correlation of team injuries to playoffs.

I agree with your original premise with elguapo and yes, you should look at the opponent too.

But that is who I was responding to. Elguapo was speculating that if we were healthier we would have 8 SB's rn. Disp was the other poster I was respinding to and they brought up Justin Smith and Aldon Smith playing less than 100% in the SB. I had to remind him that the ravens were not number 1 in health that season and that they were dealing with injuries with some of their top talents as well.

As far as the depth at certain position groups vs others such as having more RB's and TE's vs having more WR's is not unorthodox considering the type of ball that Shanahan wants to play. You said it yourself. McVay, LaFleur, and Shanahan all come from the same coaching tree but run different variations. The packers, under LaFleur, have been pass-centric from the get go. McVay became more pass-centric after they traded for Stafford. Kyle has never shown any signs of becoming pass-centric. So, no, I do not find it unorthodox to be deeper at positions that make sense on a philosophical level. It would be unorthodox if Shanahan kept 7 or 8 WR's.

By the way, Lynch said they never planned on keeping 5 RB's and 4 TE's. We are actually down to 4 RB's now and most likely won't keep 4 TE's either.