49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

I see!

I agree stacking higher numbers to manage a run centric approach is wise.

Still, the overall volume is higher than I'd expect for sure and that's something to keep an eye on.

Basically, knowing what I've learned, we're going to need 7 OL this year, 3 TE's and 3 RB's.

Lynch did note they were hoping to bring back Sermon.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

I see!

I agree stacking higher numbers to manage a run centric approach is wise.

Still, the overall volume is higher than I'd expect for sure and that's something to keep an eye on.

Basically, knowing what I've learned, we're going to need 7 OL this year, 3 TE's and 3 RB's.

Lynch did note they were hoping to bring back Sermon.

To the practice squad, yes. But Philly picked him up. Juice can play TE and Deebo can play RB.

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

No you again make everything dramatic and over the top.

No I'm saying what I've been saying in here…you just choose to make stuff up. We threw more than ran it last yr. Fact. We did not pass the ball 450x like you said….We spent 3 1sts on a QB, so any objective person would assume they will probably throw the ball a little more. Whether it's this yr or a yr from now. I don't see how that some wild thing to say. I NEVER stated we'd be a Brady in TB type offense. I have said we will run the ball as much as we can…also tossing out dumb hypotheticals like passing attempts is silly. Its all related to how the team is doing game to game. Nick Mullens in his 8 starts in 2018 was avg almost 35 passing attempts a game…over a 17 week season that's almost 590 passing attempts…why is that? Because we weren't a good football team and he HAD to throw the ball.

so if you're gonna toss my name out there at least add the whole context of the convo. Thanks

Originally posted by NCommand:

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).

I'm focusing on the majority of injuries to lineman. You're acting like them running out in space is getting them hurt. Which isn't true. Every damn team has OZ concepts. Half the league runs some sort of shanahan offense. Why is Tampa's lineman all getting hurt in PRACTICE? It's because it's a position in the trenches with huge humans failing on the ground. It's not rocket science.

Who cares how many guys he keeps on the OL? They have a bunch of young players and are trying to develop as many as possible. The PS numbers have increased to keep more guys. Go look around the league they ALL have a ton of lineman on their rosters. There's nothing super unique with what they're doing…regardless of how much you're trying to grasp at straws to prove something that isn't there.

I'm not sure how Banks or Burford will play, but they are young draft pick so the 49ers can find out what they have . If they're not good enough the 49er will know to draft and move on. We will find out this year if they're a mess and show no improvement. I have a feeling they will be OK. What I'm worried about are the Tackles. If McGlinchey is hurt we will be playing a back up most of the year. Then Trent Williams get hurt we are on the 4th string Tackle , That's not going to be good. There is no young draft pick ready to set up and play at Tackle. Maybe they plan on moving Burford out to RT next year? The reason I say this is because Trent Williams in 11 seasons has played the full season twice. In that same time he has had 2 season where he only played 10 game. He has missed 1 or more game in 9 of his 11 seasons. If McGlinchey is out Williams at some point in season will most likely miss a game or more. Then 49er will be on there 4th string tackle, how is that going to look? And, if William only plays 10 Games ? If they had a young draft pick they where grooming I would be fine with this however I only see Burford as any chance at playing Tackle and as of now he is starting at right Guard. The pick up of Blake Hance says a lot about that they are thinking. I'm Guessing that Brunskill and Blake Hance are the backups? I think they should be ok ? I think they will probably both be on the field at some point this year. Will Brunskill and Blake Hance be enough to keep the pressure off Try Lance ? Haven help if Jake Brendel get hurt and Brunskill plays Center because that means Colton McKivitz or Jaylon Moore will be one of the tackles. Plus I do not think Brunskill is a very good Center.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

No you again make everything dramatic and over the top.

No I'm saying what I've been saying in here…you just choose to make stuff up. We threw more than ran it last yr. Fact. We did not pass the ball 450x like you said….We spent 3 1sts on a QB, so any objective person would assume they will probably throw the ball a little more. Whether it's this yr or a yr from now. I don't see how that some wild thing to say. I NEVER stated we'd be a Brady in TB type offense. I have said we will run the ball as much as we can…also tossing out dumb hypotheticals like passing attempts is silly. Its all related to how the team is doing game to game. Nick Mullens in his 8 starts in 2018 was avg almost 35 passing attempts a game…over a 17 week season that's almost 590 passing attempts…why is that? Because we weren't a good football team and he HAD to throw the ball.

so if you're gonna toss my name out there at least add the whole context of the convo. Thanks

What are you babbling about now? You're all over the place.

What's your new prediction. 550 down to what?

YAC smartly adjusted his down too recently from 530/485 to 50/50.

I'll stick to my original: 500 Rushing Attempts & 515 Passing Attempts.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

I see!

I agree stacking higher numbers to manage a run centric approach is wise.

Still, the overall volume is higher than I'd expect for sure and that's something to keep an eye on.

Basically, knowing what I've learned, we're going to need 7 OL this year, 3 TE's and 3 RB's.

Lynch did note they were hoping to bring back Sermon.

To the practice squad, yes. But Philly picked him up. Juice can play TE and Deebo can play RB.

Naturally. You'd figure he'd had kept both he and Hasty (common on the PS) because it's inevitable one will be called up d/t injury, hence the larger volume of backs we've had to use here. That's my overall point. Lynch himself said he feels the PS is part of the regular roster...because they have to tap into it so much.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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).

I'm focusing on the majority of injuries to lineman. You're acting like them running out in space is getting them hurt. Which isn't true. Every damn team has OZ concepts. Half the league runs some sort of shanahan offense. Why is Tampa's lineman all getting hurt in PRACTICE? It's because it's a position in the trenches with huge humans failing on the ground. It's not rocket science.

Who cares how many guys he keeps on the OL? They have a bunch of young players and are trying to develop as many as possible. The PS numbers have increased to keep more guys. Go look around the league they ALL have a ton of lineman on their rosters. There's nothing super unique with what they're doing…regardless of how much you're trying to grasp at straws to prove something that isn't there.

Go back and reread this topic again. We are talking about the reliance on the OL (TE/RB), volume esp. run blocking and complexity (ask) of the system potentiality running through OL, TE and RB's here. Like thl noted, Kyle's variant (philosophy/how) of the offense here is different than the others even though it's the same "scheme."

HERE, we had had to use a massive volume to get through it annually. If you don't think that's scheme/philosophy-related I'd love to hear your theory on what it is...hence the discussion topic you guys get so worked up over. Which is weird given you yourself know we've run through a grocery long list of them.

Kyle tells you again right here from the HP article. Kyle gets it. But keep telling me this system here doesn't eat through OL/TE/RB's.

"We didn't really expect for [Mason] to be where he is at," Shanahan admitted Thursday on KNBR's Tolbert & Copes show. "We thought we'd be able to keep four backs and keep him on [the] practice squad (5). But the way he turned it on at the end of camp and practice, and then what he showed in those preseason games, we really felt we were going to lose him. And we actually know we were going to."

"I look at our group of running backs and, four years in a row, we've used all four of our guys within the first six weeks," Shanahan shared. "Last year, we were down to our third running back in Week 2. Actually, in Week 2, we were putting a running back in the game who I was calling him by [his] number, and so was Jimmy [Garoppolo] because we didn't know his name yet. So we were asking the number of the back if he knew how to run power while he was in the huddle during a timeout.

"I'm a little scarred from that stuff, so it's really hard for us to lose guys that have first- and second-down running ability. Those are the things that you really value because you can have these traits of guys who are good on third down, do a little bit of everything, but when you lose that first- and second-down running back, for what we do offensively, it's a little tough to function.

"And that's what JP Mason showed so much, I thought, in the preseason, that he has the capability, like some of our other guys—like Ty, like Elijah—to be a first- and second-down starting running back. And that's something that we value too much."

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

No you again make everything dramatic and over the top.

No I'm saying what I've been saying in here…you just choose to make stuff up. We threw more than ran it last yr. Fact. We did not pass the ball 450x like you said….We spent 3 1sts on a QB, so any objective person would assume they will probably throw the ball a little more. Whether it's this yr or a yr from now. I don't see how that some wild thing to say. I NEVER stated we'd be a Brady in TB type offense. I have said we will run the ball as much as we can…also tossing out dumb hypotheticals like passing attempts is silly. Its all related to how the team is doing game to game. Nick Mullens in his 8 starts in 2018 was avg almost 35 passing attempts a game…over a 17 week season that's almost 590 passing attempts…why is that? Because we weren't a good football team and he HAD to throw the ball.

so if you're gonna toss my name out there at least add the whole context of the convo. Thanks

What are you babbling about now? You're all over the place.

What's your new prediction. 550 down to what?

YAC smartly adjusted his down too recently from 530/485 to 50/50.

I'll stick to my original: 500 Rushing Attempts & 515 Passing Attempts.

When I made my original prediction, I didn't really account for Trey's designed runs and scrambles which may skew those numbers a bit or if pass pro is sub-par, skew them a lot.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

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.

I see!

I agree stacking higher numbers to manage a run centric approach is wise.

Still, the overall volume is higher than I'd expect for sure and that's something to keep an eye on.

Basically, knowing what I've learned, we're going to need 7 OL this year, 3 TE's and 3 RB's.

Lynch did note they were hoping to bring back Sermon.

To the practice squad, yes. But Philly picked him up. Juice can play TE and Deebo can play RB.

Naturally. You'd figure he'd had kept both he and Hasty (common on the PS) because it's inevitable one will be called up d/t injury, hence the larger volume of backs we've had to use here. That's my overall point. Lynch himself said he feels the PS is part of the regular roster...because they have to tap into it so much.

But you cannot count on players falling through the waiver wire and making it onto the practice squad either. Hence, both Hasty and Sermon being picked up shortly after being released.

I'm really was excited about Burford. I think he will do fine as a rookie guard and can be a good NFL guard, but I really think he will be our starting RT next season and beyond and I think he will be a very good NFL Right tackle. Remember, he played LT in college last season and RT the year before. He was invited to the Senior Bowl as a OT and I believe he started at LT for the East team.

I think we got a gem in Burford and kinda helps Make up for the whiff(s) reaching on Banks in the 2nd rd and taking Jaylon Moore on the 5th rd a guy who hanging on by the thread of a needle

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:

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.

I see!

I agree stacking higher numbers to manage a run centric approach is wise.

Still, the overall volume is higher than I'd expect for sure and that's something to keep an eye on.

Basically, knowing what I've learned, we're going to need 7 OL this year, 3 TE's and 3 RB's.

Lynch did note they were hoping to bring back Sermon.

To the practice squad, yes. But Philly picked him up. Juice can play TE and Deebo can play RB.

Naturally. You'd figure he'd had kept both he and Hasty (common on the PS) because it's inevitable one will be called up d/t injury, hence the larger volume of backs we've had to use here. That's my overall point. Lynch himself said he feels the PS is part of the regular roster...because they have to tap into it so much.

But you cannot count on players falling through the waiver wire and making it onto the practice squad either. Hence, both Hasty and Sermon being picked up shortly after being released.

As you can see from my edit above, Kyle nails my overall observation on this.

I agree you can't count on it hence the strategy to sneak him on the 53 first only to try to sneak him past waivers to the PS the next day.

The point is they don't even feel comfortable with just 4 RB's in this scheme here. And nor should they.

They've already got 10 OL (only need to have 8 on the 53) + 3 more already on the PS. Then 4 TE's on the 53 and 1 on the PS and 4 RB's on the 53 and I'm willing to bet they'll add another RB or two for the final 2 spots on the PS. These are outlier volumes.

IMJO, it's because of the overreliance on those position groups and to guard against inevitable injuries here as a result.

And like I said above, the injury trend will explain why they need such a massive volume. You can count on using 7 OL this year, all 4 RB's and at least a 4th TE (or combination if it like, Juice) if the annual trend holds.

If you don't think that's scheme/philosophy-related, cool. Then I'd love to hear your own theory and show me another team that HAS to do this to effectively operate their scheme/philosophy annually even if it's a pass-centric scheme.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

No you again make everything dramatic and over the top.

No I'm saying what I've been saying in here…you just choose to make stuff up. We threw more than ran it last yr. Fact. We did not pass the ball 450x like you said….We spent 3 1sts on a QB, so any objective person would assume they will probably throw the ball a little more. Whether it's this yr or a yr from now. I don't see how that some wild thing to say. I NEVER stated we'd be a Brady in TB type offense. I have said we will run the ball as much as we can…also tossing out dumb hypotheticals like passing attempts is silly. Its all related to how the team is doing game to game. Nick Mullens in his 8 starts in 2018 was avg almost 35 passing attempts a game…over a 17 week season that's almost 590 passing attempts…why is that? Because we weren't a good football team and he HAD to throw the ball.

so if you're gonna toss my name out there at least add the whole context of the convo. Thanks

What are you babbling about now? You're all over the place.

What's your new prediction. 550 down to what?

YAC smartly adjusted his down too recently from 530/485 to 50/50.

I'll stick to my original: 500 Rushing Attempts & 515 Passing Attempts.

Nope I'm f**king consistent in my stance. You're the one tossing my name out for no damn reason…dramatizing my take. Only one babbling in this thread (for yrs) is you.

I don't care about predications…it's a stupid thing to qualify RIGHT NOW. s**t changes based on injuries and how everyone else plays. Like I said look at Nick Mullens numbers in 2018.

In a perfect world every team would love to run the ball 600 times because that means they're winning the majority of every game. We ALL know Kyle's offense is based on OZ/PA that's the backbone of it. Spending up for a QB means he wants a little more…like having the ability to use the whole field and yeah probably not being last in the league in passing attempts.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

No you again make everything dramatic and over the top.

No I'm saying what I've been saying in here…you just choose to make stuff up. We threw more than ran it last yr. Fact. We did not pass the ball 450x like you said….We spent 3 1sts on a QB, so any objective person would assume they will probably throw the ball a little more. Whether it's this yr or a yr from now. I don't see how that some wild thing to say. I NEVER stated we'd be a Brady in TB type offense. I have said we will run the ball as much as we can…also tossing out dumb hypotheticals like passing attempts is silly. Its all related to how the team is doing game to game. Nick Mullens in his 8 starts in 2018 was avg almost 35 passing attempts a game…over a 17 week season that's almost 590 passing attempts…why is that? Because we weren't a good football team and he HAD to throw the ball.

so if you're gonna toss my name out there at least add the whole context of the convo. Thanks

What are you babbling about now? You're all over the place.

What's your new prediction. 550 down to what?

YAC smartly adjusted his down too recently from 530/485 to 50/50.

I'll stick to my original: 500 Rushing Attempts & 515 Passing Attempts.

Nope I'm f**king consistent in my stance. You're the one tossing my name out for no damn reason…dramatizing my take. Only one babbling in this thread (for yrs) is you.

I don't care about predications…it's a stupid thing to qualify RIGHT NOW. s**t changes based on injuries and how everyone else plays. Like I said look at Nick Mullens numbers in 2018.

In a perfect world every team would love to run the ball 600 times because that means they're winning the majority of every game. We ALL know Kyle's offense is based on OZ/PA that's the backbone of it. Spending up for a QB means he wants a little more…like having the ability to use the whole field and yeah probably not being last in the league in passing attempts.

You think Kyle wouldn't love every game to be like the 2019 playoffs? I do. If we passed 8-10x a game and ran for over 7 YPA every game Kyle would be ecstatic.

Trey can run, Kyle has talked umpteen million times about Trey adding to the run game by forcing 11 on 11 football, we kept 4 TE's, 5 RB's 10 OL and Deebo is still gonna play wideback with only 5 WR's. If that doesn't scream, "were gonna run the ball 60x a game" I don't know what does, lol.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

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).

I'm focusing on the majority of injuries to lineman. You're acting like them running out in space is getting them hurt. Which isn't true. Every damn team has OZ concepts. Half the league runs some sort of shanahan offense. Why is Tampa's lineman all getting hurt in PRACTICE? It's because it's a position in the trenches with huge humans failing on the ground. It's not rocket science.

Who cares how many guys he keeps on the OL? They have a bunch of young players and are trying to develop as many as possible. The PS numbers have increased to keep more guys. Go look around the league they ALL have a ton of lineman on their rosters. There's nothing super unique with what they're doing…regardless of how much you're trying to grasp at straws to prove something that isn't there.

Go back and reread this topic again. We are talking about the reliance on the OL (TE/RB), volume esp. run blocking and complexity (ask) of the system potentiality running through OL, TE and RB's here. Like thl noted, Kyle's variant (philosophy/how) of the offense here is different than the others even though it's the same "scheme."

HERE, we had had to use a massive volume to get through it annually. If you don't think that's scheme/philosophy-related I'd love to hear your theory on what it is...hence the discussion topic you guys get so worked up over. Which is weird given you yourself know we've run through a grocery long list of them.

Kyle tells you again right here from the HP article. Kyle gets it. But keep telling me this system here doesn't eat through OL/TE/RB's.

"We didn't really expect for [Mason] to be where he is at," Shanahan admitted Thursday on KNBR's Tolbert & Copes show. "We thought we'd be able to keep four backs and keep him on [the] practice squad (5). But the way he turned it on at the end of camp and practice, and then what he showed in those preseason games, we really felt we were going to lose him. And we actually know we were going to."

"I look at our group of running backs and, four years in a row, we've used all four of our guys within the first six weeks," Shanahan shared. "Last year, we were down to our third running back in Week 2. Actually, in Week 2, we were putting a running back in the game who I was calling him by [his] number, and so was Jimmy [Garoppolo] because we didn't know his name yet. So we were asking the number of the back if he knew how to run power while he was in the huddle during a timeout.

"I'm a little scarred from that stuff, so it's really hard for us to lose guys that have first- and second-down running ability. Those are the things that you really value because you can have these traits of guys who are good on third down, do a little bit of everything, but when you lose that first- and second-down running back, for what we do offensively, it's a little tough to function.

"And that's what JP Mason showed so much, I thought, in the preseason, that he has the capability, like some of our other guys—like Ty, like Elijah—to be a first- and second-down starting running back. And that's something that we value too much."

What does this prove lol? Great they found another UDFA RB and didn't want to lose him to waivers. They dropped Sermon to keep him.

KC has 4 RBs and a FB on their final roster they have 4 TEs on their roster. Tampa bay has 4 RBs and 4 TEs on their final roster as well. LA chargers have 4 RBs and a FB. Rams have 4 RBs on their final roster etc etc.

you act like SF is doing something different compared to the rest of the league and that's not true.