Playoffs, Conference Championship Week: 49ers @ Eagles

[thesack12]

Well of course if you are trying to downgrade then there are a wide range of options you could go at RT; downgrades are easy. The poster had stated that we needed to upgrade the OL, which makes sense. Upgrading the OL is a completely different scenario than downgrading it. Even a small downgrade is still a downgrade.

Who's trying to downgrade? We'd all love to upgrade every position group on the roster, and of course the team would as well.

Cost is one of the biggest factors in the equation of team building. It must be considered when making roster decisions.

We also aren't talking about Jonathan Ogden here. Replacing or even upgrading on Mike McGlinchey isn't a daunting task. Spencer Burford might be able to do both of those things. Maybe kicking Burford over slightly downgrades RT but using the money saved on letting McGlinchey walk allows them to bring in a solid Center to replace Brendel. All of which results in a net upgrade to the O-line and perhaps even cheaper to boot.

Maybe, maybe not but there are several layers to be considered here.

The downgrade comment was in response to the bolded part. As bad as McGlinchey has been at times, his PFF grade this season was 71.5 compared to Compton's 46.6, so yeah you are looking at a significant downgrade there.

Assuming we go with Purdy and Lance as our QB's (obviously a huge question mark at this point since we don't know yet if Purdy will need Tommy John yet), we would have one of the least expensive QB tandems in football. McGlinchey had a decent year but highly unlikely that he will command anything close to the $13M deal that Laken Tomlinson got. McGlinchey's current contract was paying him an average of $4.6M/year and I am skeptical that another team is going to offer him twice as much as that.

If there is a way to significantly upgrade RT for around the same money, then I'm all for that. I just don't see many/any realistic options to upgrade there given our lack of top draft picks. And since Brunskill and Brendel are both FA's as well, the need to address RG and C become needs that are as big (or bigger) as RT since we have no one to slide in at C, Burford (49.6 PFF grade) is unproven and Brunskill himself is better suited as a generalist insurance policy than the starting RG for a Super Bowl team. Bottom line is I am not convinced we can find a better RT for less money than what we currently have. It is typically easier to find a solid G than a T.

I'm not sure how Compton's rating this season while playing for a different team (on only 30 snaps) is a compelling piece of evidence.

Last season's ratings of Compton (86.5) and McGlinchey's (69.8) are much more relevant, seeing as how Compton directly replaced McGlinchey's role.

PFF ratings are far from the end all be all and should be taken with a grain of salt, but if we are going to use them to build our cases here Compton was actually a sizable UPGRADE on McGlinchey, not a downgrade.

Moving on to your larger points, I agree with you. Tackles aren't super easy to find, and aren't cheap. So when you have one that you aren't sold on hitting free agency, you have a tough decision to make. There also isn't a lot of RT talent hitting the market this offseason, so that might inflate the demand/price for Mike as well.

McGlinchey also showed some improvement this season, perhaps because he came into the season with more mass than he's had previously. While his pass protection was better than season's past, he still gets consistently beaten and misses assignments. Sometimes when he gets beat, its ugly as he gets beaten badly. Also, overall his run blocking declined this season. Run blocking was supposed to be where he hung his hat. On top of this Mike committed the 8th most penalties among O-Lineman. That's definitely not good. You know O-lineman are playing well when they are more or less invisible on the field and their name doesn't get talked about. Yet, #69 is frequently quite noticeable out there on the field, and usually not in a good way.

All this being taken into consideration, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around giving McGlinchey a raise and realistically hoping the O-line play improves. McGlinchey would be locked into like a 4 year extension moving forward and most likely continuing his up and down ho-hum type of play. As a ripple effect of having a mediocre RT locked in to an expensive contract for several seasons, it definitely makes you have some pause with finding potential upgrades down the line. I.E. in the 2024 draft when the 9ers will have premium picks again. Its unlikely they would look at taking a high end RT prospect at the top of the draft, as that would mean they either have the prospect ride the bench for awhile or bench the vet with the high cap hit (McGlinchey.)

As I was typing that above paragraph, slapping the non-exclusive franchise tag on McGlinchey started making more and more sense in my head. Would allow them to fill the RT position next season with a guy who obviously knows the system, but not commit long term to a guy that has not played consistently good football since he arrived. Which allows them to kick the can down the road, until they have more flexibility and options (i.e. restocked draft pick cupboard) to re-evaluate in 2024. The picture on what to do with McGlinchey/RT position would look a lot different in 2024 when the 9ers have all of their draft picks. Alos, Burford getting more experience might give the team confidence that they can reliably plug him into RT in 2024. More time would certainly alleviate some of the "we don't have any other options" type of pressure to bring him back.

I kind of liken it to the Armstead decision and eventual extension. Armstead was highly underwhelming until his contract year, in which he was flanked by both Bosa and Buckner so he was able to get a lot of winnable matchups in that contract year. I said it at the time, that they shouldn't trust that contract year production and slap him with the franchise tag and create a "prove it" type of year. Well they didn't and gave him a HUGE extension, and he was a big disappointment immediately after signing the extension with the talent along the D-Line getting watered down , and he's continued to be very underwhelming ever since.

Don't commit expensive long term resources to mediocre players that you aren't sold on, when you don't have to. There are things available (like franchise tags) that afford you that option while keeping some team continuity. As for McGlinchey specifically using the Non Exclusive franchise tag on him makes a lot of sense. Not only does it carry a cheaper cost on the 1 year contract, but it allows the player to negotiate with other teams. So if some dumb team loves McGlinchey for some crazy reason and offers him a big contract the 9ers can decline to match it and they will get 2 first round picks from the other team. Of course, that is not going to happen for a guy like Mike McGlinchey but using the non-exclusive tag would lower the 1 year rate tag rate on the cap as opposed to the exclusive tag.

[thesack12]

what's Lance's trade value?

They say a 3rd but I've gotta believe it's higher than that.

The Colts for example loved him coming out so it's difficult for me to imagine them not giving up at least a 2nd for him.

I mean it's not like he's played a full season+ and looks like Zac Wilson. He's played 3 full games so there is plenty of unknown potential to be worth gambling on.

However I just don't see the team trading him for this upcoming offseason as they have 0 reason or incentive to move him.

There's no reason to give up on Lance and there is no reason to fully commit to Purdy without seeing him a full season to see if he can continue to play at a high level or he starts bashing his head against the ceiling.

Not to mention we don't know how healthy Purdy can even stay. He's been hurt twice already so he could be another Jimmy G injury-wise for all we know.

I live in Indianapolis, the Colts would not make that trade.

The talk around here is that they are done trading for QB's. They are going to use #4 (or move up) and draft their future guy.

Really as I mentioned in an earlier post, for most rebuilding teams the question mark of a rookie prospect and his fresh rookie contract is going to be more attractive than the question mark of the 3rd year prospect that has only played in 3 football games in the last 3 years, is coming off serious injury, and has 2 years less on his rookie contract than somebody drafted this year.

I think a lot of people would be surprised to see what Lance's true current market value is, its not high. But if people could take the emotion out of it, and factor out his initial cost (which doesn't mean jack to other teams) they would understand why his value is distressed.

But like you mentioned, Lance shouldn't be on the trade block anyways so his current value doesn't really matter.

[zman1]

Didn’t notice that Davonte Smith signaled to his team to rush up to the line with his hands because he didn’t catch the ball on that 4th down play.

49ers May not have seen tHe ball hit the turf as he went down but they didn’t notice him signaling and the Eagles rushing up to the line as a result?

Defensive players didn’t apparently tell the sideline to throw the challenge flag.

They outcoached the 49ers. Massively.

Yup, Kyle blew that one. He was quoted as not wanting to use a time out, but they went to the half with all 3. It was the equivalent of a turnover so huge. They should have reacted to Smith pushing for a hurry up. Maybe the refs too could react to that and ask for a review. And would it be better for the game if they reversed the call when that replay finally showed up, even if a play or two later? Instead the whole football world knows the eagles got an undeserving first down that was critical to the game. Same goes for the kc run back where they missed a clear block in the back. So what if a play was run,, get the right call.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

[Samurai]

Didn’t notice that Davonte Smith signaled to his team to rush up to the line with his hands because he didn’t catch the ball on that 4th down play.

49ers May not have seen tHe ball hit the turf as he went down but they didn’t notice him signaling and the Eagles rushing up to the line as a result?

Defensive players didn’t apparently tell the sideline to throw the challenge flag.

They outcoached the 49ers. Massively.

Yup, Kyle blew that one. He was quoted as not wanting to use a time out, but they went to the half with all 3. It was the equivalent of a turnover so huge. They should have reacted to Smith pushing for a hurry up. Maybe the refs too could react to that and ask for a review. And would it be better for the game if they reversed the call when that replay finally showed up, even if a play or two later? Instead the whole football world knows the eagles got an undeserving first down that was critical to the game. Same goes for the kc run back where they missed a clear block in the back. So what if a play was run,, get the right call.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

Sure, in hindsight its easy to say Kyle should have challenged that but its a lot tougher when you have no replay angles giving you any reason to challenge it and you are basing it solely on the actions of one opposing player. And Kyle gets rightfully criticized a lot for not using his timeouts efficiently and this could be huge to waste a timeout so early in the game with no video evidence to support it. But I thought the NFL was using an Expedited Review rule since the end of the 2021 season; I have yet to hear what the NFL's rationale is for not using it in this case. It would have restored the integrity of the game in a situation where one team was trying to hurry up just to prevent a correct ruling from taking place. Playing the skeptic, I could assume the NFL didn't want to since the correct ruling would have hurt Philly and the refs calls throughout the game give the clear impression that was not the preferred agenda. But it would be nice for the NFL to offer their own agenda statement for not using it.

[Samurai]

As I was typing that above paragraph, slapping the non-exclusive franchise tag on McGlinchey started making more and more sense in my head. Would allow them to fill the RT position next season with a guy who obviously knows the system, but not commit long term to a guy that has not played consistently good football since he arrived. Which allows them to kick the can down the road, until they have more flexibility and options (i.e. restocked draft pick cupboard) to re-evaluate in 2024. The picture on what to do with McGlinchey/RT position would look a lot different in 2024 when the 9ers have all of their draft picks. Alos, Burford getting more experience might give the team confidence that they can reliably plug him into RT in 2024. More time would certainly alleviate some of the "we don't have any other options" type of pressure to bring him back.

Isn't the franchise tag salary based on the average of the top 5 at his position or 120% of his salary, whichever is higher? The average of the 5 highest paid right tackles is $18.2M/year. If you think he is worth $18M/season, then we just have drastically different opinions of his value. I mean he's OK if we can't find anyone better, but no way would I want to use up that much of our cap money on him.

[CrimsonCrew]

Isn't the franchise tag salary based on the average of the top 5 at his position or 120% of his salary, whichever is higher? The average of the 5 highest paid right tackles is $18.2M/year. If you think he is worth $18M/season, then we just have drastically different opinions of his value. I mean he's OK if we can't find anyone better, but no way would I want to use up that much of our cap money on him.

As of now, we only have $16 million in cap space, I think.

[thesack12]

Isn't the franchise tag salary based on the average of the top 5 at his position or 120% of his salary, whichever is higher? The average of the 5 highest paid right tackles is $18.2M/year. If you think he is worth $18M/season, then we just have drastically different opinions of his value. I mean he's OK if we can't find anyone better, but no way would I want to use up that much of our cap money on him.

It is, but if you use the non exclusive tag the cost is the top 5 average salaries over the last 5 seasons. I'm not sure what that number stands at, but its surely less than $18.2.

Besides using the franchise tag is all about flexibility while maintaining team continuity. What's worse 1 year of McGlinchey at $16-17 mil, or locking in McGlinchey to something like a 4 year $60 mil contract?

1 year contracts are ideal for guys that aren't consistent and you aren't sold on. Again, I liken it to the Arik Armstead free agency. Had SF tagged Armstead, he would have been exposed as a contract year fluke helped by elite talent around him. As a result of that, SF could have signed him to a significantly cheaper extension when he hit free agency again next season.

In a lot of ways, this was McGlinchey's best season. His pass protection improved, yet his run blocking took a step back. There was also several times, when he looked like the weak point of the O-line. If you extend McGlinchey you are committing to him long term.

I don't love the idea of using the tag on McGlinchey. Honestly I don't love the idea of bringing back McGlinchey at most capacities, but considering the lack of other options it should be seriously considered. Making decisions primarily based on the lack of other options in the moment tends to lead to bad decisions in the long term. I'd rather have an overpaid McGlinchey for 1 year, than an overpaid McGlinchey for 4+ seasons.

[thesack12]

Didn’t notice that Davonte Smith signaled to his team to rush up to the line with his hands because he didn’t catch the ball on that 4th down play.

49ers May not have seen tHe ball hit the turf as he went down but they didn’t notice him signaling and the Eagles rushing up to the line as a result?

Defensive players didn’t apparently tell the sideline to throw the challenge flag.

They outcoached the 49ers. Massively.

Yup, Kyle blew that one. He was quoted as not wanting to use a time out, but they went to the half with all 3. It was the equivalent of a turnover so huge. They should have reacted to Smith pushing for a hurry up. Maybe the refs too could react to that and ask for a review. And would it be better for the game if they reversed the call when that replay finally showed up, even if a play or two later? Instead the whole football world knows the eagles got an undeserving first down that was critical to the game. Same goes for the kc run back where they missed a clear block in the back. So what if a play was run,, get the right call.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

Sure, in hindsight its easy to say Kyle should have challenged that but its a lot tougher when you have no replay angles giving you any reason to challenge it and you are basing it solely on the actions of one opposing player. And Kyle gets rightfully criticized a lot for not using his timeouts efficiently and this could be huge to waste a timeout so early in the game with no video evidence to support it. But I thought the NFL was using an Expedited Review rule since the end of the 2021 season; I have yet to hear what the NFL's rationale is for not using it in this case. It would have restored the integrity of the game in a situation where one team was trying to hurry up just to prevent a correct ruling from taking place. Playing the skeptic, I could assume the NFL didn't want to since the correct ruling would have hurt Philly and the refs calls throughout the game give the clear impression that was not the preferred agenda. But it would be nice for the NFL to offer their own agenda statement for not using it.

Yeah, there has been a lot of talk about this but and its easy to criticize in hindsight. But when its happening in real time, and there wasn't time to see a clear replay I'm not sure a lot of it is warranted.

Besides, unless that play being called an incomplete pass would have had butterfly effects leading to Kyle not calling the play that Purdy got hurt on (which is doubtful since it was so early in the game it was probably pre-scripted) it really didn't matter. When Purdy got hurt the game was essentially no longer in question. And it only went on to get worse after Johnson left, the 9ers were literally not able to execute a passing play. QB injuries determined the outcome of that game, not a 1st quarter non challenged incomplete pass on a non-scoring play.