Originally posted by northoakland510:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
We're just talking man. Currently we have our career backup LT taking all the 1st string reps (who has never been good) and will be forced to pay a 36 yr old Trent whatever he wants. One because he's awesome and two because we never bring in legit competition or have any sort of plan there.
I don't care if Kinsley is gonna be great or not. They at least invested there and know you can't pay everyone massive money when you're paying a QB (among others).
It's frustrating man. Instead of legit investing in one of the most important positions on offensive (OT) they continuously ignore it and instead blow a bunch of picks at freaking RB.
My thoughts also. Not going after the best talent for the o line is getting old. How do you trade with Kansas City and let them take the best tackle on the board?
Yeah, having Kingsley would have been great. I am comparing the scouting profiles of Kingsley and Dominick, and possibly the ShanaLynch thinking was that Kingsley and Dominick were similar and ShanaLynch were ok with losing out on Kingsley and getting Dominick because (a) they still have Trent Williams (b) right guard was a bigger weakness (c) Dominick could also - possibly - play left tackle should something unforeseen happen to Trent (d) they (more like Chris Foerster) also likes Jalen Moore at left tackle if Trent cant go.
Kingsley vs Puni comparison (just reading from the scouting reports) -- Puni seems a bit faster and more agile than Kingsley, Kingsley is a bit stronger, which helps in the KC gap blocking more. Kyle runs the outside zone more than KC (I think) so a bigger Kingsley is better for KC, and a more agile Puni is better for the 49ers.