LISTEN: Purdy, Pearsall, And The 49ers Second Half →

There are 138 users in the forums

All Pro OT Trent Williams "Silverback",

Shop Find 49ers gear online
Originally posted by Cisco0623:
Originally posted by RDB4216:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by Oilcan:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Bro was waiting to see what he was getting 👀


I wonder if we would have considered him if we would have kept Buckner and not needed to draft Kinlaw?

We should have drafted him, he was BPA at the time.
We did not Need to draft Buckner's replacement with our first round pick. There were red flags, and the team ignored them.

If we kept Buckner then we lose Armstead and the team probably has the same DT need when making the first pick (whatever it changes to b/c of the Armstead/Buckner difference)

True, I forgot about that situation.

We are most likely always going DL over OL if there is a need.

Yes, but this shows the problem of drafting for need instead of BPA. When we went on the clock, I admit I screamed CeeDee Lamb!!! Then I thought wait a minute...we should be on the phones right now trying to trade McGlinchy, and then draft Wirfs. That was before McGlinshy's big drop off, and I think we could have gotten a 2nd rounder for him. I personally would have aimed for a Wirfs/Robert Hunt combo, but if they were set on replacing DT early they could have easily gone Wirfs and Raekwon Davis. Still the biggest reason fans hate trading away Buckner, was because of the way we wasted the pick.

A lot of us wanted Wirfs. Fine we got Trent after which then made some sense, but most scratched their heads at kinlaw. It is safe to say if we drafted wirfs and still traded for TW we would have been better the last 4 years. They have built a great roster despite some glaring missies /blunders early in the draft.

if Trent is being unreasonable it's going to be interesting.
even if we had both tackles.. how would the team look with trying to keep the highest paid tackles ?

this cap crap sucks sometimes
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
even if we had both tackles.. how would the team look with trying to keep the highest paid tackles ?

this cap crap sucks sometimes

Doesn't Philly pay multiple OL over 25 million? and their quarterback is close to 50 million, running back 15 million, both receivers over 26 million, so we can do it. We just may have to say goodbye to players like Greenlaw and Hufanga
Originally posted by elguapo:
Doesn't Philly pay multiple OL over 25 million? and their quarterback is close to 50 million, running back 15 million, both receivers over 26 million, so we can do it. We just may have to say goodbye to players like Greenlaw and Hufanga

Other teams can do this. Apparently we can't for whatever reason
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Cisco0623:
Originally posted by RDB4216:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by Oilcan:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Bro was waiting to see what he was getting 👀


I wonder if we would have considered him if we would have kept Buckner and not needed to draft Kinlaw?

We should have drafted him, he was BPA at the time.
We did not Need to draft Buckner's replacement with our first round pick. There were red flags, and the team ignored them.

If we kept Buckner then we lose Armstead and the team probably has the same DT need when making the first pick (whatever it changes to b/c of the Armstead/Buckner difference)

True, I forgot about that situation.

We are most likely always going DL over OL if there is a need.

Yes, but this shows the problem of drafting for need instead of BPA. When we went on the clock, I admit I screamed CeeDee Lamb!!! Then I thought wait a minute...we should be on the phones right now trying to trade McGlinchy, and then draft Wirfs. That was before McGlinshy's big drop off, and I think we could have gotten a 2nd rounder for him. I personally would have aimed for a Wirfs/Robert Hunt combo, but if they were set on replacing DT early they could have easily gone Wirfs and Raekwon Davis. Still the biggest reason fans hate trading away Buckner, was because of the way we wasted the pick.

A lot of us wanted Wirfs. Fine we got Trent after which then made some sense, but most scratched their heads at kinlaw. It is safe to say if we drafted wirfs and still traded for TW we would have been better the last 4 years. They have built a great roster despite some glaring missies /blunders early in the draft.

if Trent is being unreasonable it's going to be interesting.
even if we had both tackles.. how would the team look with trying to keep the highest paid tackles ?

this cap crap sucks sometimes

For sure, but imo similar to deebo vs Aiyuk talk. Aka a good problem to have.

i do hate the cap. Maybe they should do something like baseball.
Originally posted by frenchmov:
Originally posted by elguapo:
Doesn't Philly pay multiple OL over 25 million? and their quarterback is close to 50 million, running back 15 million, both receivers over 26 million, so we can do it. We just may have to say goodbye to players like Greenlaw and Hufanga

Other teams can do this. Apparently we can't for whatever reason

For sure juggling can be done, sacrifices made, and must draft well year in and year out. The cap does suck becuse it's very hard to keep a solid roster. You are punished for being successful in this league as a front office.
Wirfs got overpaid so damn f**king much. That s**t did to Trent's contract negotiations what Jefferson's did to Aiyuk's.
  • Hopper
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 11,989
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
even if we had both tackles.. how would the team look with trying to keep the highest paid tackles ?

this cap crap sucks sometimes

Doesn't Philly pay multiple OL over 25 million? and their quarterback is close to 50 million, running back 15 million, both receivers over 26 million, so we can do it. We just may have to say goodbye to players like Greenlaw and Hufanga

Ward and Lenoir as well.
Originally posted by Hopper:
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
even if we had both tackles.. how would the team look with trying to keep the highest paid tackles ?

this cap crap sucks sometimes

Doesn't Philly pay multiple OL over 25 million? and their quarterback is close to 50 million, running back 15 million, both receivers over 26 million, so we can do it. We just may have to say goodbye to players like Greenlaw and Hufanga

Ward and Lenoir as well.

Definitely going to have to make some tough decisions. You like to keep your home grown impact players. We just have the "unfortunate" problem of having too many of them. Luckily this appears to be a promising draft class (drafted + UFA). I hope it works out that we indeed have some real impact players. The FO will need to keep that up to keep the roster stocked.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Cisco0623:
Originally posted by RDB4216:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Originally posted by Tigerlaw:
Originally posted by Oilcan:
Originally posted by glorydayz:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Bro was waiting to see what he was getting 👀


I wonder if we would have considered him if we would have kept Buckner and not needed to draft Kinlaw?

We should have drafted him, he was BPA at the time.
We did not Need to draft Buckner's replacement with our first round pick. There were red flags, and the team ignored them.

If we kept Buckner then we lose Armstead and the team probably has the same DT need when making the first pick (whatever it changes to b/c of the Armstead/Buckner difference)

True, I forgot about that situation.

We are most likely always going DL over OL if there is a need.

Yes, but this shows the problem of drafting for need instead of BPA. When we went on the clock, I admit I screamed CeeDee Lamb!!! Then I thought wait a minute...we should be on the phones right now trying to trade McGlinchy, and then draft Wirfs. That was before McGlinshy's big drop off, and I think we could have gotten a 2nd rounder for him. I personally would have aimed for a Wirfs/Robert Hunt combo, but if they were set on replacing DT early they could have easily gone Wirfs and Raekwon Davis. Still the biggest reason fans hate trading away Buckner, was because of the way we wasted the pick.

A lot of us wanted Wirfs. Fine we got Trent after which then made some sense, but most scratched their heads at kinlaw. It is safe to say if we drafted wirfs and still traded for TW we would have been better the last 4 years. They have built a great roster despite some glaring missies /blunders early in the draft.

if Trent is being unreasonable it's going to be interesting.
even if we had both tackles.. how would the team look with trying to keep the highest paid tackles ?

this cap crap sucks sometimes

It's called Franchise tag! The 49ers need to take notes and use it like they did with many of their players. They would get the most out of them and then ship them off after it! They had a winning program too! Take notes 49ers! This Chess not Checkers!
Will the 49ers call TW's bluff and not pay him? Personally i don't want to see purdy and this O-line without Trent Williams there.
Originally posted by maximusdecimus:
Will the 49ers call TW's bluff and not pay him? Personally i don't want to see purdy and this O-line without Trent Williams there.

I don't think Trent is bluffing. Dude will simply retire if he doesn't get what he wants.
I hope the 49ers don't give in. Let him retire or show up.
Originally posted by Heroism:
Originally posted by maximusdecimus:
Will the 49ers call TW's bluff and not pay him? Personally i don't want to see purdy and this O-line without Trent Williams there.

I don't think Trent is bluffing. Dude will simply retire if he doesn't get what he wants.

I thought the same about TW, he'll retire if he doesn't get his extension. My buddy was telling me Trent lives a lavish life and blows through money like its water. Trents playing because he needs to keep playing to keep up his lifestyle. I hope thats the case cause that'll be good for the niners. Trent retiring would be worst case scenario for this team. Without Trent this o-line is easily the worst in the NFL.
[ Edited by maximusdecimus on Aug 2, 2024 at 8:40 AM ]
Originally posted by maximusdecimus:
Originally posted by Heroism:
Originally posted by maximusdecimus:
Will the 49ers call TW's bluff and not pay him? Personally i don't want to see purdy and this O-line without Trent Williams there.

I don't think Trent is bluffing. Dude will simply retire if he doesn't get what he wants.

I thought the same about TW, he'll retire if he doesn't get his extension. My buddy was telling me Trent lives a lavish life and blows through money like its water. Trents playing because he needs to keep playing to keep up his lifestyle. I hope thats the case cause that'll be good for the niners. Trent retiring would be worst case scenario for this team. Without Trent this o-line is easily the worst in the NFL.
No one else has a Trent on their team and teams still can make the Super Bowl.

plus, Trent doesn't play all 5 OL positions so it's not the worst OL
I don't think they have a problem paying Trent, I think the issue is they want to protect themselves incase he decides to retire in the next year or two. Trent probally wants the guaranteed money whether he retires or not and if that's the case, That's a real problem.
Share 49ersWebzone