There are 449 users in the forums
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
Originally posted by frenchmov:
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 GoreGoreGore:
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 9ers4eva:
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 9ers4eva:
Hes suggested Orlando Brown should've been signed instead of Hargrave. It's completely myopic.
Originally posted by Giedi:
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.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.
.
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
Originally posted by Giedi:
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.
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.
Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
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:
The OL was clearly not a tier 1 unit.
Originally posted by NCommand:
No I said, which player moves the needle more for their respective unit? Brown or Hargrave? The defense was already #1 without Hargrave. The OL was clearly not a tier 1 unit. I asked, HAD we acquired Brown, would fans feel the same way about the OL as they feel about the DL now? It's a fair question. But it's further proof fans don't feel this is a tier 1 OL. Including you.
There's just a handful of fans who still can't admit that yet still expect the QB to overcome that.
Poor Brock. That's unfair.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Then take the bet. We've already seen what happens when the great PM's has a tier 1 OL and when he doesn't but here you are again.
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Originally posted by NCommand:
No I said, which player moves the needle more for their respective unit? Brown or Hargrave? The defense was already #1 without Hargrave. The OL was clearly not a tier 1 unit. I asked, HAD we acquired Brown, would fans feel the same way about the OL as they feel about the DL now? It's a fair question. But it's further proof fans don't feel this is a tier 1 OL. Including you.
There's just a handful of fans who still can't admit that yet still expect the QB to overcome that.
Poor Brock. That's unfair.
Hargrave moves the needle far more because he's a better player. As French stated Brown is nothing more than a solid OT that sure as hell wouldn't make this unit a tier 1 by himself. But like always you think every other player another team signs is a super stud.
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Then take the bet. We've already seen what happens when the great PM's has a tier 1 OL and when he doesn't but here you are again.
You are correct. In the playoffs he had tier 4 level OL play and still won. Everyone sees it but you because it kills the narrative.
I'm sure if Brandon Thorn ranks the OL as tier one by end of year but they play average in the playoffs you will be completely focused on their end of season rankings all next offseason.
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.
