Injuries - 9-Year Analysis

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by captveg:
They weren't going to invest heavily into a backup plan because no OL in the NFL is deep at OT. They brought in some vet free agent journeymen and had a few young development players via the last couple drafts. That's pretty much what every team has at OL for backups.

True. Tom Compton was a much smarter investment.

+ Show all quotes we started the win streak as soon as Compton came in.. pretty much saved the season... that move ended up being a great investment

LOL.

as crazy as it seems, there isn't a way to counter this statement

Haha. I know what you meant. There wasn't much drop off from Mike McGlinchey to Tom Compton for quite a while. He played far better than what anyone could have expected especially at RT.

But like Brunskill, Skule, McKivitz, Compton at G, eventually the talent taps out and the weaknesses are exposed especially in the playoffs. And once again, it cost us. These are nice temporary get-by (depth) players but they're eventually, they'll cost you if they have to play for an extended period of time. They get worse as they play.

Given the scenario MM laid out, this is incredibly neglectful and incomprehensible for a FO that claims they want to win a Superbowl. And Tom Compton is gone now so that was temporary security with no long term solution. MM is still injured and there's no talent behind him who could be a long term solution. And because of that the FO was forced to option MM at $10.5M. Unreal.

And this pattern seems to be continuing again despite having a FQB now.

This is their blindspot.

No. Team. Has. Great. Backup. Offensive. Linemen.

Blaming the front office for not investing a ton of capital into the backup OL when the 2021 starting OL included players traded for at high value, a free agent at high value, and a recent 1st round pick is silly.

But that's what this forum does. Constantly.

Originally posted by captveg:
No. Team. Has. Great. Backup. Offensive. Linemen.

Blaming the front office for not investing a ton of capital into the backup OL when the 2021 starting OL included players traded for at high value, a free agent at high value, and a recent 1st round pick is silly.

But that's what this forum does. Constantly.

Quality teams cycle through them and are constantly restocking, developing and/or buying and upgrading starters which improve backups. Some teams have great eyes for that position group (like we do with the DL). They have to be talented and developing when their turn comes. Stop with that take.

Some teams are always rated high in that area year after year even after losing players. The Rams are a recent example (ranked #1 = Superbowl with a careless broken gunslinger).

That's like saying, "No. Team. Has. Great. Backup. Defensive. Linemen" while being a 49er fan.

Like I said from day 1, it's been long overdue to shift that overstock mentality of the DL to the OL especially given how this system eats through OL and given we now have a FQB.

Originally posted by NCommand:
Quality teams cycle through them and are constantly restocking, developing and/or buying and upgrading starters which improve backups.

Which is exactly what Shanalynch have done during their tenure. They've added to / brought in new guys - starters, vet backups, young development players - every single offseason.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by captveg:
They weren't going to invest heavily into a backup plan because no OL in the NFL is deep at OT. They brought in some vet free agent journeymen and had a few young development players via the last couple drafts. That's pretty much what every team has at OL for backups.

True. Tom Compton was a much smarter investment.

we started the win streak as soon as Compton came in.. pretty much saved the season... that move ended up being a great investment

+ Show all quotes
LOL.

as crazy as it seems, there isn't a way to counter this statement

Haha. I know what you meant. There wasn't much drop off from Mike McGlinchey to Tom Compton for quite a while. He played far better than what anyone could have expected especially at RT.

But like Brunskill, Skule, McKivitz, Compton at G, eventually the talent taps out and the weaknesses are exposed especially in the playoffs. And once again, it cost us. These are nice temporary get-by (depth) players but they're eventually, they'll cost you if they have to play for an extended period of time. They get worse as they play.

Given the scenario MM laid out, this is incredibly neglectful and incomprehensible for a FO that claims they want to win a Superbowl. And Tom Compton is gone now so that was temporary security with no long term solution. MM is still injured and there's no talent behind him who could be a long term solution. And because of that the FO was forced to option MM at $10.5M. Unreal.

And this pattern seems to be continuing again despite having a FQB now.

This is their blindspot.

Disagree on the pattern continuing. Banks and Moore were valuable draft capital expended on a vulnerable OLine. I think (and I Hope) this particular trend continues. I hope that they do devote at least two picks to the OLine this year. Just looking at their injury situation - they are often injured at OLine, RB, CB, and DLine positions. I'd approach the draft with a combination of best player available, and for injury depth at the positions most often injured.

In the case of the OLine, because of Kyle's system of smaller quick agile linemen outside zone blocking - they will get more injured, specially on AstroTurf, vs power gap players, and hence, ShanaLynch should anticipate that and draft not only talent but depth. Same at CB, RB and DLine. They did (I think) a decent job on vetting players for past history in the last draft, but I think they need to be much more proactive and draft also for injury -- considering the injury history of the 49ers. By that, I mean they just need to review their history of injuries, count up the injures per position and draft depth accordingly, again assuming those positions will be hit by injuries again this year.

Injury history, off the top of my head, Bosa was injured, Verett, McGlinchy, Richburg, Dee Ford, Mostert, Jeff Wilson, Kinlaw. I think they should draft depth accordingly so as to offset any specific scheme injuries that are structurally present in Kyle's offensive and defensive play designs.

To that end, I'll be disappointed if 3/9 draft picks this year aren't OL.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Quality teams cycle through them and are constantly restocking, developing and/or buying and upgrading starters which improve backups.

Which is exactly what Shanalynch have done during their tenure. They've added to / brought in new guys - starters, vet backups, young development players - every single offseason.

That's fair. Would you say it's been attacked with the same veracity as the DL? Do you think it's at a top level right now for the running game and pass protection for Trey? Would you say they have a talented eye for that position group?

As to the draft, we're all with you!

Originally posted by NCommand:
Quality teams cycle through them and are constantly restocking, developing and/or buying and upgrading starters which improve backups. Some teams have great eyes for that position group (like we do with the DL). They have to be talented and developing when their turn comes. Stop with that take.

Some teams are always rated high in that area year after year even after losing players. The Rams are a recent example (ranked #1 = Superbowl with a careless broken gunslinger).

That's like saying, "No. Team. Has. Great. Backup. Defensive. Linemen" while being a 49er fan.

Like I said from day 1, it's been long overdue to shift that overstock mentality of the DL to the OL especially given how this system eats through OL and given we now have a FQB.

I'd still argue they've addressed the secondary far less. Taken them 5 years to spend money on a corner. Zero draft picks in the first two rounds. Been far more successful putting together an O line than a secondary.

capt is right about the lack of quality OL out there. They shouldn't be signing guys just to sign guys. Had the 9ers signed Connor Williams i'd be fuming, he's the definition of mediocre. I'm still very concerned about how Banks translates. Gotta actually find and land the RIGHT guys.

Originally posted by captveg:
No. Team. Has. Great. Backup. Offensive. Linemen.

Blaming the front office for not investing a ton of capital into the backup OL when the 2021 starting OL included players traded for at high value, a free agent at high value, and a recent 1st round pick is silly.

But that's what this forum does. Constantly.

I like this post. In my mind when you have Trent and McG that's bookend tackles there. Mack is a vet center with Shanny ties. Brunskill is fine and I see Banks coming along and getting a run as a starter. Really like this line. Now I could see a center targeted in the draft. Put him behind Mack a real pro for a year to develop. Another guard to fill Tomlinson spot but doesn't need a starter salary more like a fringe starter type guy we can work with like how we got Tomlinson back in the day for cheap.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Quality teams cycle through them and are constantly restocking, developing and/or buying and upgrading starters which improve backups. Some teams have great eyes for that position group (like we do with the DL). They have to be talented and developing when their turn comes. Stop with that take.

Some teams are always rated high in that area year after year even after losing players. The Rams are a recent example (ranked #1 = Superbowl with a careless broken gunslinger).

That's like saying, "No. Team. Has. Great. Backup. Defensive. Linemen" while being a 49er fan.

Like I said from day 1, it's been long overdue to shift that overstock mentality of the DL to the OL especially given how this system eats through OL and given we now have a FQB.

I'd still argue they've addressed the secondary far less. Taken them 5 years to spend money on a corner. Zero draft picks in the first two rounds. Been far more successful putting together an O line than a secondary.

capt is right about the lack of quality OL out there. They shouldn't be signing guys just to sign guys. Had the 9ers signed Connor Williams i'd be fuming, he's the definition of mediocre. I'm still very concerned about how Banks translates. Gotta actually find and land the RIGHT guys.

I wouldn't argue that one. You already know that. They also haven't had to touch the S position forever thanks to...er, Baalke. LOL.

TY...the "right" guys; that's mostly my point. They just haven't developed a single long term high level prospect of their own.

Tomlinson was a first round OL from another team who played next to 2 HOF T's and took years to develop into a quality and reliable G. Mike McGlinchey is as close as it gets and he too was a first round pick who hasn't come close to reaching his draft position and has regressed over time.

Their eye for rookie OL + whomever supposed to be developing them = no bueno

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Quality teams cycle through them and are constantly restocking, developing and/or buying and upgrading starters which improve backups.

Which is exactly what Shanalynch have done during their tenure. They've added to / brought in new guys - starters, vet backups, young development players - every single offseason.

That's fair. Would you say it's been attacked with the same veracity as the DL? Do you think it's at a top level right now for the running game and pass protection for Trey? Would you say they have a talented eye for that position group?

As to the draft, we're all with you!

Kyle's spent at least one draft pick (sometimes more) every year of his tenure on the defensive line. However last year he didn't spend draft one pick on the defensive line. He's shifted that to two draft picks last year spent on the OLine (Banks and Moore). So I think he's going to attack the OLine a bit more now that he has Trey. 2022 will see tell us if that trend continues.

On the free agency side, I don't know exactly how compensatory picks work, but if Kyle can continue to find day 3 gems like Mitchell and Brieda (and develop coaches like Salah and McDanile) that can translate to extra day two and day three picks -- Kyle may not need free agency as much as another team like the Rams or Seattle -- who are teams that can't seem to draft well and develop their depth players into starters like the 49ers can.

The 2021 AGL data is in and the Original Post has been updated.

Sneak peek: We once again remain the 31st unhealthiest team (119.5 / ranked 29th in 2021) on the aggregate average rank. Our NFCW rivals, Seattle and the Rams, remain ranked #3 and #1, respectively, over that same 8-year time period.

San Francisco REMAINS one of the very few outlier teams that fell (way) below the 'AGL Threshold = Between: 65.9 - 82.3 (74.1)' and STLL made the playoffs and are still the only team to make the Superbowl as well since AGL started being captured in 2008.

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)

2022 - Here's to better health!

Originally posted by NCommand:
The 2021 AGL data is in and the Original Post has been updated.

Sneak peek: We once again remain the 31st unhealthiest team (119.5 / ranked 29th in 2021) on the aggregate average rank. Our NFCW rivals, Seattle and the Rams, remain ranked #3 and #1, respectively, over that same 8-year time period.

San Francisco REMAINS one of the very few outlier teams that fell (way) below the 'AGL Threshold = Between: 65.9 - 82.3 (74.1)' and STLL made the playoffs and are still the only team to make the Superbowl as well since AGL started being captured in 2008.

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)

2022 - Here's to better health!

So 2 questions: why are we such a perennially unhealthy team, and are the remaining players or the coach mostly responsible for making the playoffs despite being so banged up? Seems we win a ton DESPITE a lot of things.

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:

Originally posted by NCommand:
The 2021 AGL data is in and the Original Post has been updated.

Sneak peek: We once again remain the 31st unhealthiest team (119.5 / ranked 29th in 2021) on the aggregate average rank. Our NFCW rivals, Seattle and the Rams, remain ranked #3 and #1, respectively, over that same 8-year time period.

San Francisco REMAINS one of the very few outlier teams that fell (way) below the 'AGL Threshold = Between: 65.9 - 82.3 (74.1)' and STLL made the playoffs and are still the only team to make the Superbowl as well since AGL started being captured in 2008.

Historical AGL Ranks: Lower = Healthiest
2008 - 6th
2009 - 23rd
2010 - 4th
2011 - 8th (NFCCG)
2012 - 1st (Superbowl)
2013 - 23rd (NFCCG)
2014 - 26th
2015 - 26th
2016 - 24th
2017 - 23rd
2018 - 29th
2019 - 27th (Superbowl)
2020 - 32nd
2021 - 29th (NFCCG)

2022 - Here's to better health!

So 2 questions: why are we such a perennially unhealthy team, and are the remaining players or the coach mostly responsible for making the playoffs despite being so banged up? Seems we win a ton DESPITE a lot of things.

We do win. It's incredible actually. A total anomaly, actually. A unicorn.

Why? Well, it's safe to say we can rule out "bad luck" after 8 straight years.

Originally posted by NCommand:
We do win. It's incredible actually. A total anomaly, actually. A unicorn.

Why? Well, it's safe to say we can rule out "bad luck" after 8 straight years.

We can rule out bad luck because the the "good luck" you mentioned in the 1st line.

If we continue to have better-than-solid players and are able to reach the NFCCG every 2 out of 3 years, then keep the needless injury statistics pumping, I guess, as they are showing no causation regarding the team's results. All teams deal with rough injuries due to the physicality of the sport. All you can do is hope and pray that it's not your year you're high on the severity list in regards to quality players being lost.

p.s.,.....Given that these theories and numbers of 7 (now 8) year analysis have gone completely nowhere, it would be great to have a new injury thread when the season starts,...as what's actually going on with the current team would be much quicker easier to find.

People try to start threads doing such but they are locked and directed to this propaganda-filled thread. So like I said....just a suggestion to eventually put the tin foil hat away and call this one quits so we can actually keep up with what's relevant as training camp season begins.