49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by NCommand:
I should just set up a signature:

"You need both." ~ NC

1) ...But but but You werent saying this when Jimmy was here. Even in the biggest homer's mind here... Jimmy wasnt a tier 1 QB. Never!!

But now that he is gone,.....conveniently pivot to this new line and no one will notice, right!?

The disengdnuity is cringeworthy... lol.

2) So you need both is the current requirement? So then your defense can be complete trash now? Or we changing the sig to all 3?

Or how bout you need a complete team? Novel concept, right?!

Originally posted by NCommand:
They all lost without a tier 1 OL. Sooooo?

Only 1 of them had a tier 1 OL and...won.

Weird. Must be a coincidence.

So the Bills and Bengals lost strictly because of their OLs not being tier 1?

Originally posted by NCommand:
It's very possible Tier 2 QB's like Goff and Garoppolo can hit a tier 1 steak through the playoffs

A "tier 1 streak" now. Awesome. Another new term to add to the evergrowing list of terms in this 1 thread.

So hold on...QBs can have "tier 1 streaks" that are not because of their OLine (we dont want to be circular and redundant cause then narrative busted)... But because of some come legalized PEDs or something that sre only sold to QBs... I dunno.

But tier 2 players at other positions cannot have tier 1-level streaks of good play come playoff time?

Can someone here verify or certify that this 100% true before the definition changes again within the next hour?

Wow. Had no idea only QBs were able to increase their level of play for sustained periods of time.

I know this is the OL thread but, since it pertains,...Can anyone give a complete list of the QBs in the league that have the ability to -- without good WR/TE/RB or OL play -- go on "Tier 1 Streaks" all of a sudden as the season progresses?

Asking for a friend.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
What gives you the best odds?

In the end, is there any real difference between PM with a non-Tier 1 OL or a Flacco, Garoppolo & Goff with a Tier 1 OL??? It's still a possibility for both but what gives you the best odds?

Yes there is a tremendous difference. The playoffs just showed that.

Elite Qb >>> Elite OL. Full stop.

They all lost without a tier 1 OL. Sooooo?

Only 1 of them had a tier 1 OL and...won.

Weird. Must be a coincidence.

NC in the OL thread is top tier, S tier if you will, or do we just call that, tier 1 WZ poster?
am I getting this correct?
I have to say, I don't totally get the tiers, what tier is SF?

you won't get NC's tiers as it changes to fit the narrative. but, consider it like power rankings, OL play doesn't determine tier level, wins do

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
What gives you the best odds?

In the end, is there any real difference between PM with a non-Tier 1 OL or a Flacco, Garoppolo & Goff with a Tier 1 OL??? It's still a possibility for both but what gives you the best odds?

Yes there is a tremendous difference. The playoffs just showed that.

Elite Qb >>> Elite OL. Full stop.

They all lost without a tier 1 OL. Sooooo?

Only 1 of them had a tier 1 OL and...won.

Weird. Must be a coincidence.

NC in the OL thread is top tier, S tier if you will, or do we just call that, tier 1 WZ poster?
am I getting this correct?
I have to say, I don't totally get the tiers, what tier is SF?

you won't get the tiers as it changes to fit the narrative. Consider it like power rankings, OL play doesn't determine tier level, wins do

Problem that NC doesn't understand is that an elite OL needs a huge investment. Then drop off after the 1st round for tackles is huge, same with G/C after the 2nd round. There's a lot of luck after that and it's not easy to find those late round gems, or you need to spend years properly developing a late round OL.

It's the hardest and easiest position to draft. Easy to hit on T in the first rounds and IOL the first 2 rounds, but hard for anything after. For every elite OL you have, there's 3-4 DL that are just as good when drafting BPA.

Afterwards you need to pay these guys big money. Two elite Ts in today's cap era will take up 40-50mil of your cap space. Elite IOLs are signing for 15 mil... You can't afford to pay 4-5 players 15-25 mil per year each, and you can't afford to keep drafting OL in the first 2 rounds consistently.

You either sacrifice a good part of your roster to get an elite OL, or you find that one elite QB that can work with an above average/good OL. 40-50 mil a year vs 80-100 mil a year...

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
Problem that NC doesn't understand is that an elite OL needs a huge investment. Then drop off after the 1st round for tackles is huge, same with G/C after the 2nd round. There's a lot of luck after that and it's not easy to find those late round gems, or you need to spend years properly developing a late round OL.

It's the hardest and easiest position to draft. Easy to hit on T in the first rounds and IOL the first 2 rounds, but hard for anything after. For every elite OL you have, there's 3-4 DL that are just as good when drafting BPA.

Afterwards you need to pay these guys big money. Two elite Ts in today's cap era will take up 40-50mil of your cap space. Elite IOLs are signing for 15 mil... You can't afford to pay 4-5 players 15-25 mil per year each, and you can't afford to keep drafting OL in the first 2 rounds consistently.

You either sacrifice a good part of your roster to get an elite OL, or you find that one elite QB that can work with an above average/good OL. 40-50 mil a year vs 80-100 mil a year...

He is under the mistaken belief that everyone is solely qb focused simply because we all realize it's far and away the most important position.

If it came down to a choice between Patrick Mahomes and Quentin Nelson he'd take Nelson every time.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
Problem that NC doesn't understand is that an elite OL needs a huge investment. Then drop off after the 1st round for tackles is huge, same with G/C after the 2nd round. There's a lot of luck after that and it's not easy to find those late round gems, or you need to spend years properly developing a late round OL.

It's the hardest and easiest position to draft. Easy to hit on T in the first rounds and IOL the first 2 rounds, but hard for anything after. For every elite OL you have, there's 3-4 DL that are just as good when drafting BPA.

Afterwards you need to pay these guys big money. Two elite Ts in today's cap era will take up 40-50mil of your cap space. Elite IOLs are signing for 15 mil... You can't afford to pay 4-5 players 15-25 mil per year each, and you can't afford to keep drafting OL in the first 2 rounds consistently.

You either sacrifice a good part of your roster to get an elite OL, or you find that one elite QB that can work with an above average/good OL. 40-50 mil a year vs 80-100 mil a year...

He is under the mistaken belief that everyone is solely qb focused simply because we all realize it's far and away the most important position.

If it came down to a choice between Patrick Mahomes and Quentin Nelson he'd take Nelson every time.

what about a choice between PM and 5 Nelson's; or Nelson tier level equivalents at all 5 OL spots

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
So we are clear if you give a tier 2 qb like Jimmy and Jared a tier 1 OL they might be able to win it all but Patrick CANT win the SB this year with his group.

What gives you the best odds?

In the end, is there any real difference between PM with a non-Tier 1 OL or a Flacco, Garoppolo & Goff with a Tier 1 OL??? It's still a possibility for both but what gives you the best odds?

I've always thought - given the current NFL pass happy rules, if you give a Jimmy or a Goff 3+ seconds consistently without pressure in their faces, down in and down out - they can tear up even a top notch secondary. Its really hard to cover a Jerry Rice, or Deebo consistently as a DB if you have to cover longer than 3+ seconds. I would say if you give a very good (but not great) level QB 4+ seconds in the pocket consistently your defense is burned toast for that game.

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Sure, when you have an insane defense like that and the Legion of Sherman, it can happen too.

So you can have a tier one defensive backfield, or a tier one defensive front and not need a tier one offensive line to win it all? Just want to make sure because these are two recent examples that seem to counter your argument.

Sure. But we just saw 2 top, ever historic, defenses lose recently too. It's much more of a passing league now then the Ravens and Seahawks-days. And neither were sustainable. So yes, there are numerous ways a team could build a Superbowl winner. But the most recent years are showing a common trend that shouldn't be ignored.

Buccs defense won the Super Bowl Vs the Chiefs not Tom Brady.

True. But he also had the #1 OL and wasn't touched that game either. Some odd guy by the name of Tristan Wirfs had the highest grade that day.

Hmmm weird how the Chiefs out gained the #1 O line in yards. Defenses > Oline

Because they got blown out. But yeah, Bucs were my pick that year. I had seen them live the year before when we played them and they were stacked in talent. Their QB was a turnover machine. Adding Tom to that roster wasn't fair. The first move they made was move up for Tristan Wirfs. They got it. Smart.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
They all lost without a tier 1 OL. Sooooo?

Only 1 of them had a tier 1 OL and...won.

Weird. Must be a coincidence.

So the Bills and Bengals lost strictly because of their OLs not being tier 1?

Why do you always pivot to weird absolutes? Literally nobody is saying OL > QB. We're talking best odds. Highest probability. And that is tier 1 QB + OL play through the playoffs.

Nobody is saying a HOF QB can't mask a lot but the single QB you keep pivoting to as your one example is the SAME one that losses when he doesn't have a tier 1 OL. Which only cements my point.

Even Andy Reid "got it."

Why can't you?

I've never seen such a small weird crowd of fans who DON'T want a tier 1 OL for Jimmy, Trey, Brock, Kyle, etc. Ya'll must have a groomsmen disorder. Haha

Originally posted by NCommand:
Why do you always pivot to weird absolutes? Literally nobody is saying OL > QB. We're talking best odds. Highest probability. And that is tier 1 QB + OL play through the playoffs.

Needing your team to perform well to win a Lombardi is kind of a redundant compromise tho,....no? Who here would disagree with someone saying you need good play as you proceed into the playoffs?

I applaud you for finally being willing to move towards the right direction, but that is not what has been pushed here constantly. It's been about investment and rankings (only from selected sources tho) that are supposedly needed.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Sure, when you have an insane defense like that and the Legion of Sherman, it can happen too.

So you can have a tier one defensive backfield, or a tier one defensive front and not need a tier one offensive line to win it all? Just want to make sure because these are two recent examples that seem to counter your argument.

Sure. But we just saw 2 top, ever historic, defenses lose recently too. It's much more of a passing league now then the Ravens and Seahawks-days. And neither were sustainable. So yes, there are numerous ways a team could build a Superbowl winner. But the most recent years are showing a common trend that shouldn't be ignored.

Buccs defense won the Super Bowl Vs the Chiefs not Tom Brady.

True. But he also had the #1 OL and wasn't touched that game either. Some odd guy by the name of Tristan Wirfs had the highest grade that day.

Hmmm weird how the Chiefs out gained the #1 O line in yards. Defenses > Oline

Because they got blown out. But yeah, Bucs were my pick that year. I had seen them live the year before when we played them and they were stacked in talent. Their QB was a turnover machine. Adding Tom to that roster wasn't fair. The first move they made was move up for Tristan Wirfs. They got it. Smart.

I think you can get away with drafting mid-tier and late round and UDFA's if you have a good OLine Coach and Scheme. But it does catch up to you eventually. Specially if your scouting department can't find the talent and your coaching staff can't develop the talent. Seattle SeaHawks are a good example. One reason Kyle traded up 3 first round picks is because all these other teams (rams, Seahawks, and to a certain extent Cardinals) were basically missing on those first round picks and so they started trading those first round picks for free agents to get some decent talent. It also helped that they had a TON of cap space because of being perennial bottom feeding teams.

49ers aren't bottom feeders and the cap space is going to be a premium because of Bosa. It's critical the 49ers draft well, because the cap and the bottom feeding teams will raid the 49er depth. Up and comming is Trent and his age, and I do hope the 49ers recognize the fact that they can't skimp on that left tackle spot. It would be great if ShanaLynch can find a gem like Purdy in the late rounds for the offensive line, but those are once in a generation lotto picks. Most likely either they use a first or second round pick on a OLIneman next year -- or draft at least 5 OLinemen late next year and hope one can stick at the left tackle position. (the Pareto Principle)

Posted this in the FA thread.

Curtis Mcclendon was cut by the Raiders, he's 10x better than Nick Zakelj, as he was the highest graded rookie OL in the preseason.

Niners should have signed him. But once again, we can't scout OL.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Posted this in the FA thread.

Curtis Mcclendon was cut by the Raiders, he's 10x better than Nick Zakelj, as he was the highest graded rookie OL in the preseason.

Niners should have signed him. But once again, we can't scout OL.

Took at look at him, definitely a nice prospect. I think very similar to Prior and Feliciano. I don't know if Mcclendon could beat out Prior and Feliciano though, given that both have been in the system since training camp and Mcclendon would have a lot of catching up to do. Rookie OLinemen are notoriously flawed in technque and strength due to the college nature of the game - source - NY85. I'm betting ShanaLynch would keep an eye on him and see if he catches on to another team's practice squad, develops, and then get some game film of him next year or the year after and prioritize him as a FA in the offseason if they see him improving. At least that's how I see them approaching Mcclendon. I could see him at Right Guard or as a good backup OT if he continues develop.