49ers Offensive Line

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Sorry, no, the original point was from 9ers4eva who only sees the football world through a QB lens where he believes it's the QB who makes the OL look better. I agreed to a point. There are a few who certainly can do that. But the reverse is true too. A really good OL can help make a QB like Goff look better too. Hence, why I always say it's most ideal to have both. I simply used Detroit as an example of that.

So now you agree? For years it wasn't true.

Goff looks the same as he did in Los Angeles. No real noticeable improvement. Detroit isn't an example of having both because Goff isn't elite.

The reality is you think the O line is MORE important than the QB. I happen to think the QB is MORE important. We are seeing it with Brock. But you can't admit your take about QBs not making OLs better was wrong so you keep spinning everything I or others say.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
OL used to be a group position that could stack up with the DL and either be dominant against them or very much hold their own.

It hasn't been the case anymore for 20-30+ years. Every player / coach will tell you how much more DL players are better than OL players from an athletic POV compared to previous eras. Then you add to that holding rules that now get enforced, the OL is at a big disadvantage. Obviously you have your outliers on the OL, but they are much much fewer compared to the DL.

You need at least above average athletic players on the OL, but most importantly they have to be able to think as well. It's a good mix between, scheme, players, play calling, and QB, when it comes to the OL now days. It doesn't matter how talented your OL is if you're going up against a good DL / good scheme, the QB won't be able to just sit back in the pocket and do what he wants.

Great post. I believe this too. That said, when you get to the playoff teams annually, you still end up closer to even as the cream rises to the top. You still typically only have a couple tier 1 OL's vs. tier 1 DL's and we've seen the tier 1 DL's lose some of those battles, no doubt. But if you're talking generally across the league, no doubt the better athletes typically play on the DL. The good news is the league agrees and have overdrafted and oversaturated the market so much over the years you can pick up guys like Chase, Gregory, Suh, Day, a s**t ton of ex 1st rounders, etc. pretty much any time with minimal loss. OL? That's nearly impossible (to your point).

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
lol gaslighting masterclass

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I'll make it very simple. The 9ers O line is the Jimmy G of O lines. Slightly above average. They absolutely can win the SB with that because of Brock.

It's also a Jimmy G like secondary. Needs to be carried by the front 7.

Every team left has flaws. Even Baltimore. Who can mitigate them the best with execution wins.

The reality is you think the O line is MORE important than the QB.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Sorry, no, the original point was from 9ers4eva who only sees the football world through a QB lens where he believes it's the QB who makes the OL look better. I agreed to a point. There are a few who certainly can do that. But the reverse is true too. A really good OL can help make a QB like Goff look better too. Hence, why I always say it's most ideal to have both. I simply used Detroit as an example of that.

So now you agree? For years it wasn't true.

Goff looks the same as he did in Los Angeles. No real noticeable improvement. Detroit isn't an example of having both because Goff isn't elite.

The reality is you think the O line is MORE important than the QB. I happen to think the QB is MORE important. We are seeing it with Brock. But you can't admit your take about QBs not making OLs better was wrong so you keep spinning everything I or others say.

I think it's safe to say 9ers4eva is All's burner account. Wow. Dafuq.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
OL used to be a group position that could stack up with the DL and either be dominant against them or very much hold their own.

It hasn't been the case anymore for 20-30+ years. Every player / coach will tell you how much more DL players are better than OL players from an athletic POV compared to previous eras. Then you add to that holding rules that now get enforced, the OL is at a big disadvantage. Obviously you have your outliers on the OL, but they are much much fewer compared to the DL.

You need at least above average athletic players on the OL, but most importantly they have to be able to think as well. It's a good mix between, scheme, players, play calling, and QB, when it comes to the OL now days. It doesn't matter how talented your OL is if you're going up against a good DL / good scheme, the QB won't be able to just sit back in the pocket and do what he wants.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If it's not the reality why would you bet on a team that clearly doesn't have an elite QB to go father than the 9ers and Chiefs?

Obviously the Lions O Line trumps all.

If ya need both the Lions bet was terrible. But the reality is you don't think you need both. Never have. Just own it.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If it's not the reality why would you bet on a team that clearly doesn't have an elite QB to go farther than the 9ers and Chiefs?

Obviously the Lions O Line trumps all.

If ya need both the Lions bet was terrible. But the reality is you don't think you need both. Never have. Just own it.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Sorry, no, the original point was from 9ers4eva who only sees the football world through a QB lens where he believes it's the QB who makes the OL look better. I agreed to a point. There are a few who certainly can do that. But the reverse is true too. A really good OL can help make a QB like Goff look better too. Hence, why I always say it's most ideal to have both. I simply used Detroit as an example of that.

So now you agree? For years it wasn't true.

Goff looks the same as he did in Los Angeles. No real noticeable improvement. Detroit isn't an example of having both because Goff isn't elite.

The reality is you think the O line is MORE important than the QB. I happen to think the QB is MORE important. We are seeing it with Brock. But you can't admit your take about QBs not making OLs better was wrong so you keep spinning everything I or others say.

I think it's safe to say 9ers4eva is All's burner account. Wow. Dafuq.

is this a reference to Mr Att's accusations, which have since blown up in his face?

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
OL used to be a group position that could stack up with the DL and either be dominant against them or very much hold their own.

It hasn't been the case anymore for 20-30+ years. Every player / coach will tell you how much more DL players are better than OL players from an athletic POV compared to previous eras. Then you add to that holding rules that now get enforced, the OL is at a big disadvantage. Obviously you have your outliers on the OL, but they are much much fewer compared to the DL.

You need at least above average athletic players on the OL, but most importantly they have to be able to think as well. It's a good mix between, scheme, players, play calling, and QB, when it comes to the OL now days. It doesn't matter how talented your OL is if you're going up against a good DL / good scheme, the QB won't be able to just sit back in the pocket and do what he wants.

I disagree with that, but for the reasons you point out. I agree that the DL's are superior to the OL's, but the league in general wants points, which is why they've generally made rules in favour of that side of the ball for 45+ years. The OL is holding far more than ever, and it's being allowed because the league knows the passing offenses would get neutered, and that would go against their intention.

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. For fun I just stuck with the 2 teams that happened to have been in tier 1 ATT of the bet simply to stay with the 7 year trend up to that point. He got SF/KC. That has nothing to do with thinking OL makes a QB. You need both. Ask me if I think Hurts and Goff are playing at a tier 1 level.