2022 Team Information (Needs)

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
Don't discount Colton McKivitz, he provides so much versatility.

Man, the OL is really hard to figure out until we know about Mack. But who do you think has more talent for swing T...Brunskill or McKivitz? And with the new rules, are we keeping only 8 OL again?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
Don't discount Colton McKivitz, he provides so much versatility.

Man, the OL is really hard to figure out until we know about Mack. But who do you think has more talent for swing T...Brunskill or McKivitz? And with the new rules, are we keeping only 8 OL again?

I like Brunskill as a swing, versatile along the line. But ditto for McKivitz, who I assume is younger, bigger, and potentially the starter at RG or RT. Camp will be very interesting. Only one spot is locked down.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
Don't discount Colton McKivitz, he provides so much versatility.

Man, the OL is really hard to figure out until we know about Mack. But who do you think has more talent for swing T...Brunskill or McKivitz? And with the new rules, are we keeping only 8 OL again?

I like Brunskill as a swing, versatile along the line. But ditto for McKivitz, who I assume is younger, bigger, and potentially the starter at RG or RT. Camp will be very interesting. Only one spot is locked down.

Yeah, that's crazy to think about!

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by ritz126:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:
Nothing glaring anyway. No position you are going to pick on exclusively. Could have trouble up the gut if Mack retires and Banks doesn't work out. Bad problem to have with a rookie QB, hopefully neither happens or at the very least only one.

i think the OL as of now is a weakness

I think that is presumptive. It is a question mark, not yet a weakness. We don't know what we have in Banks, we don't know if Mack retires and we don't know how Glinch returns from injury. We could be better than last year. Do I think that is likely? No but I think there is a chance we're about the same with better depth.

This.

LT: Trent Williams
LG: Aaron Banks; Nick Zakelj
C: Alex Mack; Jake Brendel & Dohnovan West
RG: Spencer Burford; Jaylon Moore
RT: Mike McGlinchey; Daniel Brunskill

In an ideal world, it works out where we only have two new G's who come in and get better and better and play close to Tomlinson's level by the end of the year, Brunskill becomes the full time swing T, McGlinchey not only regains form but plays better because he's no longer playing injured and Mack plays at a similar level with insurance in Brendel and West or Poe learn from Mack all year and next year, this line may only have one hole (RT) and a ton of interior youth with upside.

Like you said, is that likely? Not really but it's certainly possible!

I think the OLine (with or without Mack) will get stronger as the season progresses. Sort of like how Huff, Thomas, and Lenoir got better as the season wore on. One reason I say this is that I've been trying to catch up on our OLIne picks and most (if not all of them - so the scouting reports say) are very athletic, smart, and have superb mobility and above average strength. I'm also assuming one or more of our Starting OLInemen will get dinged during the season and the rookies and 2nd year players who will sub in for them for an extensive period, will be able to show off their athleticism. When that happens - like the Elijah Mitchell situation - we will hopefully find some diamonds in the rough.

Two guys I'm anticipating being out extensively this upcoming season is Mack and Trent. Why? Both are way up there in age, and already Trent had injury issues towards the latter part of the season last year. Mack was solid, but I remember Richburg and how losing him, was a big factor in losing that Championship game. Both Mack and Trent, if they are out extensively, I can see them being a player coach and mentor to the young OLinemen on our squad, hopefully imparting wisdom and experience to them to make our young guys develop faster and become even better.

Whether OL is a liability or question mark, i prefer ?? Mark.

Mostly agree with NC's OL above, the one change being McG at RT. I am going to be very surprised if he starts. If so, I'd take a guess after first qtr of season…but not until. That change however, is tricky, because while i like Jay moore at RG, Burford has a lot to do to prove he can start. I hope he does, believe me. But even with the lineup above, it will take all 10 of those guys to have a moderately decent OL.

Ergo, the post i made a few weeks ago about carrying 10 OLs….well, i think it would be unwise to carry less than that. Because even with what we have above, there are question marks…carrying 8 OLs to me is just asking for problems. Hell, we carry 10 or 11 DLs, because of injury. Well, same can be said re: our OL also.

For starting the season, i would strongly favor carrying 10 OLs, and see how it plays out. Injury has killed us on OL, from one player to another. Less than 10 OLs…to me just makes no sense.

I know, i know…who do we cut back on…ie , what positions? OL and CBs/ Ss just got clobbered last yr, We know that. So beef up those two positions, and decr the # of players at other positions. Carrying 10 or 11 DLs makes sense. Not keeping 10 OLs due to ??? On what we have right now…doesn't make sense to me. Cut back on RBs, same for WRs.

Problem is PS is liable to be raided so draw straws for which positions to cut back on. I completely agree with carrying 10 or 11 DLs. But we should also be carrying 10 OLs….at least until we figure out who is healthy, and who has talent on OL. Then, just like DL where players get nicked…we should carry 10.

fire away…again. Am well aware it's a choice ..but would much rather cut back on WRs and RBs than OL or DBs. Those were the positions that killed us last yr.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by ritz126:

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:
Nothing glaring anyway. No position you are going to pick on exclusively. Could have trouble up the gut if Mack retires and Banks doesn't work out. Bad problem to have with a rookie QB, hopefully neither happens or at the very least only one.

i think the OL as of now is a weakness

I think that is presumptive. It is a question mark, not yet a weakness. We don't know what we have in Banks, we don't know if Mack retires and we don't know how Glinch returns from injury. We could be better than last year. Do I think that is likely? No but I think there is a chance we're about the same with better depth.

This.

LT: Trent Williams
LG: Aaron Banks; Nick Zakelj
C: Alex Mack; Jake Brendel & Dohnovan West
RG: Spencer Burford; Jaylon Moore
RT: Mike McGlinchey; Daniel Brunskill

In an ideal world, it works out where we only have two new G's who come in and get better and better and play close to Tomlinson's level by the end of the year, Brunskill becomes the full time swing T, McGlinchey not only regains form but plays better because he's no longer playing injured and Mack plays at a similar level with insurance in Brendel and West or Poe learn from Mack all year and next year, this line may only have one hole (RT) and a ton of interior youth with upside.

Like you said, is that likely? Not really but it's certainly possible!

I think the OLine (with or without Mack) will get stronger as the season progresses. Sort of like how Huff, Thomas, and Lenoir got better as the season wore on. One reason I say this is that I've been trying to catch up on our OLIne picks and most (if not all of them - so the scouting reports say) are very athletic, smart, and have superb mobility and above average strength. I'm also assuming one or more of our Starting OLInemen will get dinged during the season and the rookies and 2nd year players who will sub in for them for an extensive period, will be able to show off their athleticism. When that happens - like the Elijah Mitchell situation - we will hopefully find some diamonds in the rough.

Two guys I'm anticipating being out extensively this upcoming season is Mack and Trent. Why? Both are way up there in age, and already Trent had injury issues towards the latter part of the season last year. Mack was solid, but I remember Richburg and how losing him, was a big factor in losing that Championship game. Both Mack and Trent, if they are out extensively, I can see them being a player coach and mentor to the young OLinemen on our squad, hopefully imparting wisdom and experience to them to make our young guys develop faster and become even better.

Whether OL is a liability or question mark, i prefer ?? Mark.

Mostly agree with NC's OL above, the one change being McG at RT. I am going to be very surprised if he starts. If so, I'd take a guess after first qtr of season…but not until. That change however, is tricky, because while i like Jay moore at RG, Burford has a lot to do to prove he can start. I hope he does, believe me. But even with the lineup above, it will take all 10 of those guys to have a moderately decent OL.

Ergo, the post i made a few weeks ago about carrying 10 OLs….well, i think it would be unwise to carry less than that. Because even with what we have above, there are question marks…carrying 8 OLs to me is just asking for problems. Hell, we carry 10 or 11 DLs, because of injury. Well, same can be said re: our OL also.

For starting the season, i would strongly favor carrying 10 OLs, and see how it plays out. Injury has killed us on OL, from one player to another. Less than 10 OLs…to me just makes no sense.

I know, i know…who do we cut back on…ie , what positions? OL and CBs/ Ss just got clobbered last yr, We know that. So beef up those two positions, and decr the # of players at other positions. Carrying 10 or 11 DLs makes sense. Not keeping 10 OLs due to ??? On what we have right now…doesn't make sense to me. Cut back on RBs, same for WRs.

Problem is PS is liable to be raided so draw straws for which positions to cut back on. I completely agree with carrying 10 or 11 DLs. But we should also be carrying 10 OLs….at least until we figure out who is healthy, and who has talent on OL. Then, just like DL where players get nicked…we should carry 10.

fire away…again. Am well aware it's a choice ..but would much rather cut back on WRs and RBs than OL or DBs. Those were the positions that killed us last yr.

I think ShanaLynch has to choose the best 5, 6 or 7 young OLinemen on the squad and hope the rest can make it to the practice squad. The QB is young, and ShanaLynch is going to start building the Offensive line around the young QB, hence the youth movement on the OLine. So I don't see a problem with all the OLinemen question marks. With Jimmy gone, I can see eventually Trent and Mack retiring and leaving the team either this year or next year - and hopefully by then the young OLinemen will be seasoned veterans and able to protect Trey and generate a dominating ground game. In a sense, to me, it's a rebuilding year - in the sense that ShanaLynch will be rebuilding/reshaping the team around their young mobile strong armed QB. Vs, Jimmy who's arm talents and mobility were vastly different from Trey's. The OLine guys who make it to the squad this year, are most likely going to form the core of the team for years to come.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
Don't discount Colton McKivitz, he provides so much versatility.

Man, the OL is really hard to figure out until we know about Mack. But who do you think has more talent for swing T...Brunskill or McKivitz? And with the new rules, are we keeping only 8 OL again?

I like Brunskill as a swing, versatile along the line. But ditto for McKivitz, who I assume is younger, bigger, and potentially the starter at RG or RT. Camp will be very interesting. Only one spot is locked down.

Yeah I like Brunskill, but long term, Idk, I like McKivitz due to his versatility, plus he is younger, I think anyway.

And when we talk true locks, I look at the following being true locks.

QB- Trey & Sudfeld
RB- Mitchell, Sermon, & Davis-Price
FB- Juice
WR- Deebo, Aiyuk, JJ, Ray-Ray, & Gray
TE- Kittle, & Woerner
OL- Mack(if back), Trent, McGlinchey, Moore, Banks, Brunskill, Burford
DE- Bosa, Turay, Ebukam, Hyder, Jackson
IDL- Armstead, Kinlaw, Ridgeway
LB- Warner, Al-Shaair, Dre, & Burks
CB- Ward, Moseley, Ambry, Lenoir,
S- Ward, Huf, Odum, & Moore
ST- Gould, Wish, & Pepper

That's 43, then if you look at other players who should make it.

TE- Dwelley($250K GTD, no TE drafted)
OL- McKivitz, & Zakelj
DL- Givens(I like him better than Hurst)
CB- Womack, Castro-Fields

That makes it 49, 50 with Kalia Davis on PUP, 51 with Verrett(PUP/IR or 53).

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
And when we talk true locks, I look at the following being true locks.

QB- Trey & Sudfeld
RB- Mitchell, Sermon, & Davis-Price
FB- Juice
WR- Deebo, Aiyuk, JJ, Ray-Ray, & Gray
TE- Kittle, & Woerner
OL- Mack(if back), Trent, McGlinchey, Moore, Banks, Brunskill, Burford
DE- Bosa, Turay, Ebukam, Hyder, Jackson
IDL- Armstead, Kinlaw, Ridgeway
LB- Warner, Al-Shaair, Dre, & Burks
CB- Ward, Moseley, Ambry, Lenoir,
S- Ward, Huf, Odum, & Moore
ST- Gould, Wish, & Pepper

That's 43, then if you look at other players who should make it.

TE- Dwelley($250K GTD, no TE drafted)
OL- McKivitz, & Zakelj
DL- Givens(I like him better than Hurst)
CB- Womack, Castro-Fields

That makes it 49, 50 with Kalia Davis on PUP, 51 with Verrett(PUP/IR or 53).

Pretty much agree on everything here. The one hope I have is that maybe some of the undrafted OLinemen can knock off some of the more veteran OLinemen and helps get the team younger. It may even (hopefully) open up some trading opportunities for some of the more veteran OLinemen if one or more of the undrafted OLinemen are so good that it appears ShanaLynch can do that. We shall see.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by AB81Rules:
And when we talk true locks, I look at the following being true locks.

QB- Trey & Sudfeld
RB- Mitchell, Sermon, & Davis-Price
FB- Juice
WR- Deebo, Aiyuk, JJ, Ray-Ray, & Gray
TE- Kittle, & Woerner
OL- Mack(if back), Trent, McGlinchey, Moore, Banks, Brunskill, Burford
DE- Bosa, Turay, Ebukam, Hyder, Jackson
IDL- Armstead, Kinlaw, Ridgeway
LB- Warner, Al-Shaair, Dre, & Burks
CB- Ward, Moseley, Ambry, Lenoir,
S- Ward, Huf, Odum, & Moore
ST- Gould, Wish, & Pepper

That's 43, then if you look at other players who should make it.

TE- Dwelley($250K GTD, no TE drafted)
OL- McKivitz, & Zakelj
DL- Givens(I like him better than Hurst)
CB- Womack, Castro-Fields

That makes it 49, 50 with Kalia Davis on PUP, 51 with Verrett(PUP/IR or 53).

Pretty much agree on everything here. The one hope I have is that maybe some of the undrafted OLinemen can knock off some of the more veteran OLinemen and helps get the team younger. It may even (hopefully) open up some trading opportunities for some of the more veteran OLinemen if one or more of the undrafted OLinemen are so good that it appears ShanaLynch can do that. We shall see.

I forgot Jeff Wilson Jr. at RB as the 4th back to make it. Not many holes or open roster spots.

John Chapman had a great idea for assessing the roster after the draft. He ranks the top starting positions and its depth.

Do you guys agree?

[1 is the best, 11, worst]

Starting Rank | Position | (Depth Rank):
1 LB (7)
2 ER (2)
3 TE (6)
4 WR (10)
5 CB (3)
6 DT (5)
7 QB (1)
8 T (11)
9 S (9)
10 RB (8)
11 IOL (4)

Originally posted by NCommand:
John Chapman had a great idea for assessing the roster after the draft. He ranks the top starting positions and its depth.

Do you guys agree?

[1 is the best, 11, worst]

Starting Rank | Position | (Depth Rank):
1 LB (7)
2 ER (2)
3 TE (6)
4 WR (10)
5 CB (3)
6 DT (5)
7 QB (1)
8 T (11)
9 S (9)
10 RB (8)
11 IOL (4)

i wouldn't agree.. haven't seem them play yet

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:
John Chapman had a great idea for assessing the roster after the draft. He ranks the top starting positions and its depth.

Do you guys agree?

[1 is the best, 11, worst]

Starting Rank | Position | (Depth Rank):
1 LB (7)
2 ER (2)
3 TE (6)
4 WR (10)
5 CB (3)
6 DT (5)
7 QB (1)
8 T (11)
9 S (9)
10 RB (8)
11 IOL (4)

i wouldn't agree.. haven't seem them play yet

He's talking just talent regarding team needs. Yes, a talented player could play like ass so we don't know officially yet.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:
John Chapman had a great idea for assessing the roster after the draft. He ranks the top starting positions and its depth.

Do you guys agree?

[1 is the best, 11, worst]

Starting Rank | Position | (Depth Rank):
1 LB (7)
2 ER (2)
3 TE (6)
4 WR (10)
5 CB (3)
6 DT (5)
7 QB (1)
8 T (11)
9 S (9)
10 RB (8)
11 IOL (4)

i wouldn't agree.. haven't seem them play yet

He's talking just talent regarding team needs. Yes, a talented player could play like ass so we don't know officially yet.

i know a lot of people don't have patience and feel the need to make these super early rankings... but who knows this early.. #11 could be our #1 by the end of the season

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:
John Chapman had a great idea for assessing the roster after the draft. He ranks the top starting positions and its depth.

Do you guys agree?

[1 is the best, 11, worst]

Starting Rank | Position | (Depth Rank):
1 LB (7)
2 ER (2)
3 TE (6)
4 WR (10)
5 CB (3)
6 DT (5)
7 QB (1)
8 T (11)
9 S (9)
10 RB (8)
11 IOL (4)

i wouldn't agree.. haven't seem them play yet

He's talking just talent regarding team needs. Yes, a talented player could play like ass so we don't know officially yet.

i know a lot of people don't have patience and feel the need to make these super early rankings... but who knows this early.. #11 could be our #1 by the end of the season

Totally understand.

Mine would be a tad different; based on question marks. That doesn't mean they couldn't ascend once playing though and others rated higher, couldn't regress.

1 ER (1)
2 LB (7)
3 WR (5)
4 RB (2)
5 TE (6)
6 CB (3)
7 DT (8)
8 T (10)
9 QB (11)
10 S (9)
11 IOL (4)

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:
John Chapman had a great idea for assessing the roster after the draft. He ranks the top starting positions and its depth.

Do you guys agree?

[1 is the best, 11, worst]

Starting Rank | Position | (Depth Rank):
1 LB (7)
2 ER (2)
3 TE (6)
4 WR (10)
5 CB (3)
6 DT (5)
7 QB (1)
8 T (11)
9 S (9)
10 RB (8)
11 IOL (4)

i wouldn't agree.. haven't seem them play yet

He's talking just talent regarding team needs. Yes, a talented player could play like ass so we don't know officially yet.

i know a lot of people don't have patience and feel the need to make these super early rankings... but who knows this early.. #11 could be our #1 by the end of the season

Totally understand.

Mine would be a tad different; based on question marks. That doesn't mean they couldn't ascend once playing though and others rated higher, couldn't regress.

1 ER (1)
2 LB (7)
3 WR (5)
4 RB (2)
5 TE (6)
6 CB (3)
7 DT (8)
8 T (10)
9 QB (11)
10 S (9)
11 IOL (4)

For me, I'm too lazy to do this stuff. I'd rather have the *hall of fame* experts do my work for me, and will wait till I actually see them in pre-season to even attempt stuff this complicated.