Niners draft Colton McKivitz | OT West Virginia

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

Hope this is a cover our ass depth signing, Hes not good but I'd rather keep him than to go into FA/draft hoping we can get a serviceable RT

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

Not even in the slightest. In fact, I'd guestimate it's even "probable" given 8 years of evidence. If they didn't learn after the first Superbowl, should we really expect them to see the clear theme after two?

I'm hopeful given there aren't many top needs left but...

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

Not even in the slightest. In fact, I'd guestimate it's even "probable" given 8 years of evidence. If they didn't learn after the first Superbowl, should we really expect them to see the clear theme after two?

I'm hopeful given there aren't many top needs left but...

I feel the same way.
Lynch- after our evaluations we realized no rookie would come in and simply take his job etc.

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

Not even in the slightest. In fact, I'd guestimate it's even "probable" given 8 years of evidence. If they didn't learn after the first Superbowl, should we really expect them to see the clear theme after two?

I'm hopeful given there aren't many top needs left but...

I feel the same way.
Lynch- after our evaluations we realized no rookie would come in and simply take his job etc.

Thats why I think the most realistic options are

Stay at 31 and draft G/T guy like Barton, Suamataia, or Amegadjie (trade up in 2nd) and play him at RG this year before moving him to RT in 2025.

Or

Trade up 5-10 picks and draft a pure T like Mims, Fautanu, Latham if they fall or Guyton, or Morgan. Then start Mckivitz at RG.

Either way Mckivitz starts

Originally posted by NCommand:
Not even in the slightest. In fact, I'd guestimate it's even "probable" given 8 years of evidence. If they didn't learn after the first Superbowl, should we really expect them to see the clear theme after two?

I'm hopeful given there aren't many top needs left but...

This is a weird take. After the 2019 Super Bowl:

In 2020, the 49ers traded for the best LT in the game, to pair with their 1st round pick at RT from 2018, a high-priced Center they extended in 2018, and a starting guard they traded for. Richburg unfortunately suffered a career-ending injury, but they also signed Garland, who did well the Super Bowl season as a plug-in.

In 2021, they used their 2nd highest pick (after the #3 they traded up for) on a starting guard, and also drafted O-line depth and signed one of the best Centers in the game (Mack).

In 2022, without a first round pick, they spent 2 more draft picks on O-line. Burford in the 4th became a starter, but was replaced. Zakelj hasn't been able to crack the depth chart. Rookies often don't pan out, especially Day 3 picks.

2023 is the year everyone beats them up for, due to Lynch's quote about why they didn't draft O-line with what was mostly Day 3 picks. You can argue they should've used a late 3rd rounder on O-line; mocks frequently had SF drafting Blake Freeland, who they passed on and went early in the 4th, appearing in 9 games for the Colts at RT and ending the season ranked 79th out of 81 tackles by PFF (McKivitz ranked 62nd).

In the past 2 years, they haven't invested heavily in the O-line outside of Williams' contract. That's true. They've also had limited resources due to top-of-the-league contracts and the Lance/CMC trades. This year, they have resources and a full complement of draft picks.

The last time they came off a Super Bowl, they spent 2 years investing to improve the O-line. History suggests they'll do so again.

Originally posted by Brucey72:
Thats why I think the most realistic options are

Stay at 31 and draft G/T guy like Barton, Suamataia, or Amegadjie (trade up in 2nd) and play him at RG this year before moving him to RT in 2025.

Trade up 5-10 picks and draft a pure T like Mims, Fautanu, Latham if they fall or Guyton, or Morgan. Then start Mckivitz at RG.

Either way Mckivitz starts

Both of these scenarios are unrealistic. The 49ers haven't drafted a player to play at guard that they plan to move to tackle as long back as I can remember. All the tackles they've used (Staley, Davis, Brown, Martin, Gilliam, McGlinchey, Coleman, Skule, Williams, Moore) have played tackle. They have had a few tackles that they moved inside (Boone, Brunskill), who then stayed there.

(You could argue that McKivitz himself is the exception - drafted as a tackle with no IOL experience, he started a few games at RG in 2020 due to injury and Shon Coleman opting out of the season. But he also played snaps at tackle that season, and has exclusively played tackle since then. I wouldn't consider that a "plan" to play him at guard then move him outside, but you can quibble if you like.)

For that same reason, I don't think they value McKivitz as a RG option, either. I think plan A is to resign Felciano and have him compete with a draft pick and Burford, and Plan B is to sign a different FA who competes with a draft pick and Burford. Maybe McKivitz joins that competition and beats out everyone, but for the price tag they just extended him for, it seems far more likely they keep McKivitz as a swing tackle, given how even more poorly Jaylon Moore has played in that role.

Originally posted by sspiker:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Not even in the slightest. In fact, I'd guestimate it's even "probable" given 8 years of evidence. If they didn't learn after the first Superbowl, should we really expect them to see the clear theme after two?

I'm hopeful given there aren't many top needs left but...

This is a weird take. After the 2019 Super Bowl:

In 2020, the 49ers traded for the best LT in the game, to pair with their 1st round pick at RT from 2018, a high-priced Center they extended in 2018, and a starting guard they traded for. Richburg unfortunately suffered a career-ending injury, but they also signed Garland, who did well the Super Bowl season as a plug-in.

In 2021, they used their 2nd highest pick (after the #3 they traded up for) on a starting guard, and also drafted O-line depth and signed one of the best Centers in the game (Mack).

In 2022, without a first round pick, they spent 2 more draft picks on O-line. Burford in the 4th became a starter, but was replaced. Zakelj hasn't been able to crack the depth chart. Rookies often don't pan out, especially Day 3 picks.

2023 is the year everyone beats them up for, due to Lynch's quote about why they didn't draft O-line with what was mostly Day 3 picks. You can argue they should've used a late 3rd rounder on O-line; mocks frequently had SF drafting Blake Freeland, who they passed on and went early in the 4th, appearing in 9 games for the Colts at RT and ending the season ranked 79th out of 81 tackles by PFF (McKivitz ranked 62nd).

In the past 2 years, they haven't invested heavily in the O-line outside of Williams' contract. That's true. They've also had limited resources due to top-of-the-league contracts and the Lance/CMC trades. This year, they have resources and a full complement of draft picks.

The last time they came off a Super Bowl, they spent 2 years investing to improve the O-line. History suggests they'll do so again.

Good post. This has been explained to him before though, facts don't matter however.

Last year there were plenty of people thinking the signing of Sam Darnold was a nothing to see here kind of thing. Then the Treyde happened.

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

If that happens the season is lost and the superbowl window slams shut.

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

This regime has zero idea how to evaluate o line talent. Truely remarkable how terrible they are at it

Originally posted by BigBug415:
McKivitz isn't the problem. Brendel is.
I sure hope we draft a Center.

McKivitz is a problem, but Brendel and Burford are bigger problems. I'm curious as to how Feliciano graded as a center and if they would consider having him and Brendel battle for the starting job. I'd love to draft a center but they aren't starting until 2025 at the earliest. We can get a great talent at guard at 31 and get a tackle to compete with McKivitz at 63. Could also move out of the first and can ideally get a great guard still while picking up an extra day 2 pick. Either way, I'd want to enter 2024 with McKivitz on the bench and potentially the whole right side of the OL changed.

Originally posted by bassmanr:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Much ado about nothing.

Unless he ends up starting at RT. And that is a very real option under this regime.

I won't be surprised when him and Burford are starting

If that happens the season is lost and the superbowl window slams shut.

So in 2019 they rolled out Mike Person and Brunskill. Both guys were trash. Brunskill developed into being serviceable but is now gone. Now we have Burford and Feliciano. Burford is trash and Feliciano is just serviceable. Stuck in the same exact spot 5 years later. History can't repeat it self here. They must improve the right side and center.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by Leathaface:
McKivitz is starting at RT next season. That is a 100% guarantee. You don't extend a player you are planning to be on the bench or function as a swing tackle. They must really see something in him...

We need to look up the definition of 100% and guarantee lol...

His extension also opens up enough cap space that we needed to be over per NFL rules.

It's 4.5 mil guaranteed, that's very close to the going rate of a swing tackle anyways. If we don't draft a T early or look into FA for a T (Tyron Smith ) I would be very surprised.

I hope you're right!

Tyron Smith?

I'm never opposed to adding more talent to this unit! It too, by default, would create better depth which can't be understated with our injury history here.

Makes total sense…add an injury prone T to cover for perceived injury issues on the current OL

Originally posted by sspiker:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Not even in the slightest. In fact, I'd guestimate it's even "probable" given 8 years of evidence. If they didn't learn after the first Superbowl, should we really expect them to see the clear theme after two?

I'm hopeful given there aren't many top needs left but...

This is a weird take. After the 2019 Super Bowl:

In 2020, the 49ers traded for the best LT in the game, to pair with their 1st round pick at RT from 2018, a high-priced Center they extended in 2018, and a starting guard they traded for. Richburg unfortunately suffered a career-ending injury, but they also signed Garland, who did well the Super Bowl season as a plug-in.

In 2021, they used their 2nd highest pick (after the #3 they traded up for) on a starting guard, and also drafted O-line depth and signed one of the best Centers in the game (Mack).

In 2022, without a first round pick, they spent 2 more draft picks on O-line. Burford in the 4th became a starter, but was replaced. Zakelj hasn't been able to crack the depth chart. Rookies often don't pan out, especially Day 3 picks.

2023 is the year everyone beats them up for, due to Lynch's quote about why they didn't draft O-line with what was mostly Day 3 picks. You can argue they should've used a late 3rd rounder on O-line; mocks frequently had SF drafting Blake Freeland, who they passed on and went early in the 4th, appearing in 9 games for the Colts at RT and ending the season ranked 79th out of 81 tackles by PFF (McKivitz ranked 62nd).

In the past 2 years, they haven't invested heavily in the O-line outside of Williams' contract. That's true. They've also had limited resources due to top-of-the-league contracts and the Lance/CMC trades. This year, they have resources and a full complement of draft picks.

The last time they came off a Super Bowl, they spent 2 years investing to improve the O-line. History suggests they'll do so again.

Only a weird take if you don't take into account that he perpetually talks out of his ass