49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally sted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Agree that making the playoffs and making the Superbowl is better than not making it. I think eventually our *luck* will turn, and the breaks should go for us rather than against us. I still cite the fact that the 49ers have 20+ years of making the playoffs but only 5 super bowls to show for it.

We have one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL for sure, and I think the problem both NC and I have is with the coaches is the draft capital that's been devoted to the Offensive Line. It looks like the 49ers would rather get free agents for the OLine than spending draft capital. The good is you save draft capital for the important DLine/DE position - which is important, but when the 49ers use draft capital for the offensive line, it's more mid to late rounds, with undrafted free agents rounding out depth.

I think now that we have a franchise QB, I think that mixture has to change - not a whole lot, but just a bit to deal with Trent's inevitable retirement and developing some depth behind the starters to protect the all-important franchise QB.

I understand your concern and also wish we had someone to bookend our line that wasn't a question mark, plus better depth. But you can't have every unit on the team filled with stars. The fact we have the best offensive linemen in the league coupled with a young and up and coming interior is a recipe for success there. You can't say our FO hasn't dedicated resources here.

Clearly the interior, which has been developed through the draft, becoming a strength was not something the armchair GMs like NC could see coming. Last year at this time NC was constantly ragging on our brain trust for rolling out with Banks, Brendel, and Burford. And guess what, these dudes brought it. They weren't top tier, but they're young and will only get better this year. So the FO must be confident they can develop players, and you know what? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the professionals working day in day out with these guys. NC is not.

Yes, because this FO never makes mistakes or has blind spots to team building. LOL.

Year 4, year 5, year 6, etc.

Have I been wrong?

Also, look through the board. There's just as much "complaining" about the QB, wasted draft picks, cap space, ER2, secondary, health, practice style, etc.

These are just discussions on how fans believe we can win #6.

And many times, fans are right in the end. Many times they're wrong.

Let's see what happens in year 7 and hope the FO got it right this time because we all want the same thing.

I never claimed they were infallible. Retrospectively, we can easily point to each mistake this FO, and every FO for that matter, has made. There's no FO that is without mistakes. The problem lies in where their mistakes are given more weight than their successes. Obviously, we have one of the strongest teams in the league, therefore the sum total of the mistakes and successes would heavily favor the successes. It's really simple accounting. So when I see fans wax woetic about every single mistake, it's just rings hollow when we're a championship caliber roster.

And yes, you've been wrong plenty. Are you kidding? Everyone is wrong to some degree in their prognostications.

This board doesn't just exist to serve people whining about things. There's plenty of ways we can both be critical and supportive without being armchair GMs who whine about things in retrospect when we do win it all every year. I just don't get why folks can't have patience when things are clearly going well. Like, prematurely crying about our offensive line didn't look so hot last year, did it? So maybe we should also wait and see this year. This doesn't mean that I am stoked about who we are running out there with regarding our RT and general depth, but s**t man, there's so much context here. Maybe our brain trust didn't like the guys in the third that were armchair GM favorites. Maybe our FO liked guys that they feel they can develop and have an inside track in improving. After seeing Banks excel last year after this board, almost unilaterally, panned the pick and the player, I think we should take a step back and reserve judgement on our failure as an organization.

We're in the OL thread. Have I been wrong in the end on 'this' topic?

I also never said anything negative about the 3 B's...in fact, I was one of the first fans of Brendel. I voiced concerns like everyone but reserved judgement until we knew more mid season. Same concept this year with McKivitz.

No one has ever accused me of having a good memory, but I seem to recall you being really critical that we did not address the interior of our Oline the entire offseason last year. So, unless my memory is failing me (and it's certainly possible), then yes, you've been wrong.

All good.

Do you think this OL in year 7 is strong enough for Brock, Kyle, etc. to get us 6, finally?

If our team is healthy, I think we're good enough to win this year, for sure.

I think our Oline is good enough, but there are some question marks for sure. Does Burford make the next step in his improvement. Is McKivitz serviceable.

Then there's Brock, can he continue to play like a top 5 QB, or is there regression.

Don't you think we're championship caliber should we remain relatively healthy and Brock plays as good as he did last season, even if our oline is a tier 2 or whatever you define as less than the best?

That's fair. And the OL could become a tier 1 unit too. Let's see.

The issue with the boys above is that when it clearly wasn't good enough, when they thought it was too, they couldn't come back in here and admit it.

Hopefully that'll be moot for you or if that proves true, you'll be man enough to admit it.

Lol keep making stuff up. You know damn well what the discussion was and you are being disingenuous per usual

Let's try year 7. Is it good enough?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

Originally posted by Chance:
Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

I think this starting 5 OL should be fine. They should be as good as last year team. Now when injury's happen and they will, I think they could be in some trouble. I agree with some of this Like getting hot at the right time. But Luckiest and Healthiest ??? Healthiest Tent William has been hurt every year he has been with the 49er. He has only played a full season twice in his career. DeeBo has been on the team for 4 years and has missed game every year. There is almost zero chance Dre Greenlaw play every game. This is not bad luck this is who those player are. They all have a hard time staying Healthy. If Fred Warner get hurt that would be bad lucky. Hyperfocusing is what the 49er are on the DL, WR and RB. Since Kyle and John have been drafting they have used around 11 second and third round pick on WR and in the last 3 year they have used 4 or 5 on RB. If out of 15 or 16 second or third round pick they drafted a tackle, a center or a corner back, then maybe those position would not be so thin that 1 injury real hurts the team.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

When you're consistently the bridesmaid, that means you're close but have fallen short of what gets you over the hump. That can be as a result of prioritizing certain positions over others, draft fails at the top, cap space issues, team building philosophy, annual injuries, coaching turnovers, etc.

You don't need to watch 40 years of football. Watch the 7 years here.

And you can see we at best had a QB2, OL3, DL1 that played D2 when it mattered, Team 31st in health on the aggregate average rank, discipline issues, 1990's build model, Secondary3, LB1, RB1, TE1, etc.

I'm glad you are happy being competitive every year. So am I. But this OL thread is just one topic as to why we never made it over the hump. If you genuinely don't believe that, there are plenty of other topics you might subscribe to more instead.

But what I asked you was, do you think this OL is good enough to help get us over the hump when it matters most in 2023?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

When you're consistently the bridesmaid, that means you're close but have fallen short of what gets you over the hump. That can be as a result of prioritizing certain positions over others, draft fails at the top, cap space issues, team building philosophy, annual injuries, coaching turnovers, etc.

You don't need to watch 40 years of football. Watch the 7 years here.

And you can see we at best had a QB2, OL3, DL1 that played D2 when it mattered, Team 31st in health on the aggregate average rank, discipline issues, 1990's build model, Secondary3, LB1, RB1, TE1, etc.

I'm glad you are happy being competitive every year. So am I. But this OL thread is just one topic as to why we never made it over the hump. If you genuinely don't believe that, there are plenty of other topics you might subscribe to more instead.

But what I asked you was, do you think this OL is good enough to help get us over the hump when it matters most in 2023?

You mean is the QB good enough? Every year it was either QB injury or not good enough QB play. Put any top QB on this roster and we're a SB favorite. OL hasn't been the reason we haven't won a ring yet lol

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

When you're consistently the bridesmaid, that means you're close but have fallen short of what gets you over the hump. That can be as a result of prioritizing certain positions over others, draft fails at the top, cap space issues, team building philosophy, annual injuries, coaching turnovers, etc.

You don't need to watch 40 years of football. Watch the 7 years here.

And you can see we at best had a QB2, OL3, DL1 that played D2 when it mattered, Team 31st in health on the aggregate average rank, discipline issues, 1990's build model, Secondary3, LB1, RB1, TE1, etc.

I'm glad you are happy being competitive every year. So am I. But this OL thread is just one topic as to why we never made it over the hump. If you genuinely don't believe that, there are plenty of other topics you might subscribe to more instead.

But what I asked you was, do you think this OL is good enough to help get us over the hump when it matters most in 2023?

I don't share the myopic view that this team's success rests solely on the oline's performance. I absolutely think we can win it all this year through a multitude of possibilities. Does a strong performance from our offensive line increase our chances? Of course, but so does a top 5 QB, or a stifling defense front, or the emergence of key players unbeknownst to fans right now.

i think what I'm understanding is that your philosophy differs from our front office, therefore, when championships are not won, it's because the front office didn't think more like you. It's why you spend so much time with snarky comments about our FO and staff when all they've done is put together one of the best rosters in the NFL. bUt tHeY'rE nOt a TiEr 1 oLiNe!!! We'll, let's pack it in boys, this guy NCommand on 49ers web on.com has cracked the equation on how NFL teams win championships, and it looks like we just haven't invested enough draft picks on the offensive line to win it all. Might as well just forfeit our games this year and rehire Baalke who knew how to build the oline.

And no need to gatekeep this thread. I am free to critique your flawed view as much as you're free to give it.

Originally posted by NCommand:
That's fair. And the OL could become a tier 1 unit too. Let's see.

The issue with the boys above is that when it clearly wasn't good enough, when they thought it was too, they couldn't come back in here and admit it.

Hopefully that'll be moot for you or if that proves true, you'll be man enough to admit it.

Actually the issue with the boys above is your constant arguing that if only the OL was better they would've won multiple titles. Then you hedge that when you get called on it with your multiple things are to blame shtick.

Every unit on this team was good enough to win the SB had another until picked them up. Unfortunately the until thst was the most responsible, QB, wasn't picked up enough by the rest of the team to win it. But you saw that as a way to make the OL the culprit all by themselves.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Let's try year 7. Is it good enough?

If QB is the level we need to be it then it likely will be good enough. If I however we get the Chiefs average OL play from the playoffs then probably not

Originally posted by Chance:
I don't share the myopic view that this team's success rests solely on the oline's performance. I absolutely think we can win it all this year through a multitude of possibilities. Does a strong performance from our offensive line increase our chances? Of course, but so does a top 5 QB, or a stifling defense front, or the emergence of key players unbeknownst to fans right now.

i think what I'm understanding is that your philosophy differs from our front office, therefore, when championships are not won, it's because the front office didn't think more like you. It's why you spend so much time with snarky comments about our FO and staff when all they've done is put together one of the best rosters in the NFL. bUt tHeY'rE nOt a TiEr 1 oLiNe!!! We'll, let's pack it in boys, this guy NCommand on 49ers web on.com has cracked the equation on how NFL teams win championships, and it looks like we just haven't invested enough draft picks on the offensive line to win it all. Might as well just forfeit our games this year and rehire Baalke who knew how to build the oline.

And no need to gatekeep this thread. I am free to critique your flawed view as much as you're free to give it.

Hes suggested Orlando Brown should've been signed instead of Hargrave. It's completely myopic.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Hes suggested Orlando Brown should've been signed instead of Hargrave. It's completely myopic.

Orlando brown was average at LT for chiefs (and that is being extremely generous.... Part of it is he wasn't even the worst on that line bc their RT was literally one of the worst in the league), but he was a decent RT for the ravens. Honestly don't think hed have been a good fit here and certainly not for the $$ he ended up getting.

Funny thing is the chiefs got WORSE at LT this offseason. It won't matter because of mahomes but we've already had that discussion

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Let's try year 7. Is it good enough?

If QB is the level we need to be it then it likely will be good enough. If I however we get the Chiefs average OL play from the playoffs then probably not

I'm in the middle of this conversation for both sides, your statement right above is correct. However tho O line should be a major concern area and now even the secondary is scary. I feel good about the OLine starters now, McKivitz looked good in pre season. After our starting O line and starting secondary its scary. I liked Manning so 🤷 I dont know.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Agree that making the playoffs and making the Superbowl is better than not making it. I think eventually our *luck* will turn, and the breaks should go for us rather than against us. I still cite the fact that the 49ers have 20+ years of making the playoffs but only 5 super bowls to show for it.

We have one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL for sure, and I think the problem both NC and I have is with the coaches is the draft capital that's been devoted to the Offensive Line. It looks like the 49ers would rather get free agents for the OLine than spending draft capital. The good is you save draft capital for the important DLine/DE position - which is important, but when the 49ers use draft capital for the offensive line, it's more mid to late rounds, with undrafted free agents rounding out depth.

I think now that we have a franchise QB, I think that mixture has to change - not a whole lot, but just a bit to deal with Trent's inevitable retirement and developing some depth behind the starters to protect the all-important franchise QB.

I understand your concern and also wish we had someone to bookend our line that wasn't a question mark, plus better depth. But you can't have every unit on the team filled with stars. The fact we have the best offensive linemen in the league coupled with a young and up and coming interior is a recipe for success there. You can't say our FO hasn't dedicated resources here.

Clearly the interior, which has been developed through the draft, becoming a strength was not something the armchair GMs like NC could see coming. Last year at this time NC was constantly ragging on our brain trust for rolling out with Banks, Brendel, and Burford. And guess what, these dudes brought it. They weren't top tier, but they're young and will only get better this year. So the FO must be confident they can develop players, and you know what? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the professionals working day in day out with these guys. NC is not.

For me, I think the OLine drafting has been decent since the Trey was drafted (2021 and 2022). ShanaLynch has devoted about two picks (one mid-range one low round) to the OLine. There was a break this last year where *no offenisive lineman* was drafted in 2023. That has to change in 2024, with Trent Aging and where Brock needs to be protected.

Foerster is a good OLine coach. He was instrumental in developing that interior line last year, my simple point is give Foerster some draft picks and don't rely on UDFA's to bolster that OLIne, specially with protecting our new potential franchise QB. I was very disappointed this year in no draft capital being devoted to the OLine despite having 9 picks, and they will have around 12 picks next year because of all the compensatory picks. The trade up with Trey really hurt this year due to no first round picks, and that was where the meat of the OLine draft was this year, according to the Draft Nerds. I think McKivitz is going to be a good player, but there is no real depth behind the 5 starters - and that can be changed with a good solid draft next year. 12 picks says they *should* devote some to the OLine next year - whether they will or not, remains to be seen.

P.S. The problem I see with free agent offensive line acquisitions is they are failing to take advantage of Foerster's ability to develop OLinemen. Why not devote some low round picks (say a some 7th rounders) and have Foerster develop them, keep them for 3+ years, before letting them go. Versus, signing these free agents and letting them go the next year and be back to square one depthwise every year.

Without a doubt we'll need to get some Oline next year.

I'm personally not sold on McKivitz and have never been impressed with his play. Even the game against the Rams when he filled in for Trent and was widely regarded as a good game, I thought he looked pretty terrible and needed a lot of help on his side. But I am hopeful he has developed since then to be as good as what we've had the last few years at RT. I also wished we had drafted a T in the 3rd round, but I also know jack s**t about college players, so have no idea whether a prospect at T was worth it there, or whether those prospects were better than Jaylon Moore is right now. It could simply be that, as mediocre as Moore has looked, those guys in the third didn't seem like they would have unseat him on the depth chart. So in that regard, I give the staff the benefit of the doubt wrgt the last draft.

No need to give the benefit of the doubt to the coaching staff from my view. I was really doubtful of Foerster until last year when he tutored three young OLIneman (and one was UDFA) into one of the best interior linemen in the league. Banks, Brendal, and Burford really did well last year and (knock on wood) were also very durable to boot. So, from my perspective, McKivits should equal the development this year of that interior line last year. We'll have a good OLine this year - but as we all know, this team has had injury issues, and that's where the depth of the squad does begin to matter. That's why drafting vs free agents is - I think - the way to go forward as you can retain talented OLinemen for cheap and develop them for later draft compensation if they leave the team after their rookie contracts are up.

Kyle, I feel, since he's become a head coach, has become more conservative on the offense. I think he's been much more run oriented as HC than he was as OC, because of Jimmy and his lack of mobility. But I think with Purdy, that may begin to change now with, for example, Feliciano. I think Feliciano was chosen because he can pass protect, and with Purdy, Kyle can actually open up his offense on the passing side now. Right Tackle should be almost as good a pass protector as the Left Tackle.

Feliciano has experience playing both guard positions and center. His pass protection should be good after coming from an offense he is familiar with that had a lot of success in the passing game. He has good footwork and can slide step, kick step, and post step. He works well against stunts and has excellent change of direction. One of his best traits is handling the bull rush from the power defensive tackles. Being able to neutralize the penetration up the middle is essential to keeping the pocket clean. That is something that Giants struggled with over the last few seasons. This will allow a quarterback to step up when the speed rushers pressure him off the edge.
.
Weakness: Consistent run block aggression It is not that Feliciano is bad at run blocking--it is that he lacks consistency in run blocking. He can control men and move them when properly dialed in, especially blocking at angles. He doesn't always get the movement necessary from your guards to give the runner the advantage inside.
https://www.si.com/nfl/giants/big-blue-plus/what-does-jon-feliciano-bring-to-an-offensive-line

Kyle's dad had one of the top elite OLines back in the Denver Championship days. His OLines - and with the zone blocking - dominated defenses because his OLine's were so powerful and also very fast. They weren't big, but they were damn good at blocking for Tyrrell Davis. Of course, it helps to have a elite QB - operating behind that OLine too.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

When you're consistently the bridesmaid, that means you're close but have fallen short of what gets you over the hump. That can be as a result of prioritizing certain positions over others, draft fails at the top, cap space issues, team building philosophy, annual injuries, coaching turnovers, etc.

You don't need to watch 40 years of football. Watch the 7 years here.

And you can see we at best had a QB2, OL3, DL1 that played D2 when it mattered, Team 31st in health on the aggregate average rank, discipline issues, 1990's build model, Secondary3, LB1, RB1, TE1, etc.

I'm glad you are happy being competitive every year. So am I. But this OL thread is just one topic as to why we never made it over the hump. If you genuinely don't believe that, there are plenty of other topics you might subscribe to more instead.

But what I asked you was, do you think this OL is good enough to help get us over the hump when it matters most in 2023?

I don't share the myopic view that this team's success rests solely on the oline's performance. I absolutely think we can win it all this year through a multitude of possibilities. Does a strong performance from our offensive line increase our chances? Of course, but so does a top 5 QB, or a stifling defense front, or the emergence of key players unbeknownst to fans right now.

i think what I'm understanding is that your philosophy differs from our front office, therefore, when championships are not won, it's because the front office didn't think more like you. It's why you spend so much time with snarky comments about our FO and staff when all they've done is put together one of the best rosters in the NFL. bUt tHeY'rE nOt a TiEr 1 oLiNe!!! We'll, let's pack it in boys, this guy NCommand on 49ers web on.com has cracked the equation on how NFL teams win championships, and it looks like we just haven't invested enough draft picks on the offensive line to win it all. Might as well just forfeit our games this year and rehire Baalke who knew how to build the oline.

And no need to gatekeep this thread. I am free to critique your flawed view as much as you're free to give it.

LOL.

Look at your bold. I just said this right before your tirade. You really seem to struggle understanding OL was AN issue but not THE only issue.

And you're scared to answer the simple question on whether you think it's good enough this year to help get us over the hump. Ironic.

This is further proof that you are also in that myopic, "QB is all that matters" camp.

And you can see we at best had a QB2, OL3, DL1 that played D2 when it mattered, Team 31st in health on the aggregate average rank, discipline issues, 1990's build model, Secondary3, LB1, RB1, TE1, etc.

I'm glad you are happy being competitive every year. So am I. But this OL thread is just one topic as to why we never made it over the hump.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
So you have concerns he/it might not be good enough?

See, we're not so different.

Welcome to the OL thread circa 1995.

Don't confuse my disdain for armchair GMing with a blind spot for areas of concern. I just tend to give the FO the benefit of the doubt since we have a championship caliber roster. But every roster, even the best teams have positions of concern. It's impossible in the salary cap era not to.

Exactly. It took quite a few years but most fans, even yourself, can see the OL is and has been one of those concern areas.

Offensive line isn't a position. RT is a position of concern since it's an unknown. Last year LG, C, RG were positions of concern because each projected starter was an unknown (to the fans), but it turned out the staff had a better view of those players than the fans. I don't know why this feels like you're trying to have a "gotcha" moment, but if admitting that we're not a perfect team at ever position is what you're arguing against, then count me out of that argument because I've never, nor would I have ever, made it.

It was never about being a perfect team. It was treating the OL with similar vigor they use on the DL so that a 49er QB could have the best shot at winning us a Championship (and life would be made easier on Kyle too). Some coaches clearly try to achieve that with their QB and others feel they can go skinnier there and scheme around it and overcome it in other aspects. Our approach at best, has gotten us the bridesmaid treatment. The ones who have gone the former route have won Superbowls.

Bridesmaid treatment? We're consistently in the running. I've watched a lot of football in my 40 years and getting that final win is often not about who's best. It's about who is luckiest, and healthiest, and hitting their stride at just the right time, or a QB that goes on fire, aas much as it is with anything. And sometimes, it's just about who has the most points on the board when the final whistle blows, which sounds stupid, but these games are sometimes coin flips. One day it goes your way another it doesn't. So you keep giving yourself opportunities, and you increase your chances of cashing in. Fielding a top roster that is a perennial contender is what we should be focusing on, not some strange obsession with one area of our team at the expense of other areas because of some arbitrary equation you've concocted. C'mon, man. So yes, let's continue to address our needs as best as we can while fielding a balanced roster, but let's not get caught up in hyperfocusing on only one area thinking it's going to solve all of our woes.

When you're consistently the bridesmaid, that means you're close but have fallen short of what gets you over the hump. That can be as a result of prioritizing certain positions over others, draft fails at the top, cap space issues, team building philosophy, annual injuries, coaching turnovers, etc.

You don't need to watch 40 years of football. Watch the 7 years here.

And you can see we at best had a QB2, OL3, DL1 that played D2 when it mattered, Team 31st in health on the aggregate average rank, discipline issues, 1990's build model, Secondary3, LB1, RB1, TE1, etc.

I'm glad you are happy being competitive every year. So am I. But this OL thread is just one topic as to why we never made it over the hump. If you genuinely don't believe that, there are plenty of other topics you might subscribe to more instead.

But what I asked you was, do you think this OL is good enough to help get us over the hump when it matters most in 2023?

I would have loved to get those two first round picks back from the Trey Lance trade and choose some good OLinemen from them in this years draft. I know we got Purdy, and so those picks were essentially a wash for finding a gem like Purdy, but man o man - what couda, shouda, woulda happened with the two first round picks (albeit they were at the bottom quarter of the first round) but man! TWO first round picks that could have been OLinemen, would have made this OLine squad elite with Foerster coaching them this year. Oh well, as a result we'll just have to rely on Feliciano and Pryor I guess this season...

P.S. Pryor and Feliciano are big guys, more like gap scheme vs zone blocking guys. I wonder what you make of this.