2023 Offseason

[CrimsonCrew]

PFF's top players under 25, with no Niners on it:

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-ranking-top-25-players-under-25-2023-nfl-season-sauce-gardner-justin-jefferson

Tough list right off the bat. #1 is Micah Parsons, who went with the pick we traded when we moved up for Lance. #3 is Tristan Wirfs, who we passed on to move back a spot and take Kinlaw despite a glaring need at OT at the time (granted we then traded for Trent Williams the next day). #6 is Creed Humphrey, who we passed on for another interior OL in Aaron Banks.

[wco81]

What did McGlichey end up signing for?

[CrimsonCrew]

PFF on the Niners' offseason:

SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Offseason Grade: C
The addition of Javon Hargrave to an already dominant defense is the only thing saving this from a very bad offseason grade. Hargrave accounted for 57 total pressures last season for the Eagles, more than double any 49ers interior lineman. Clelin Ferrell is a far more quietly solid addition to the defensive front, and Sam Darnold could easily end up starting at quarterback if Brock Purdy’s elbow doesn’t heal quickly enough.

In the draft, it’s difficult to argue that anything the 49ers did was the result of good process. They reached relative to the PFF and consensus big boards at most picks and drafted a kicker in the third round.

I think they're underselling FA. We came away with arguably the best FA on the market, retained our most important pieces, and by and large lost replaceable players who we replaced for less money. At this point, the FO has to receive the benefit of the doubt on replacing DL players, which is where we suffered the most numerical losses this year. There was some hand-wringing when we lost Arden Key, and the team didn't feel that at all. They are really exceptional at identifying fits and getting the most out of them, especially along the DL.

The Isaiah Oliver pick also seems very under-the-radar. He's been a good slot corner who will be another year removed from serious injury. He should basically be a starter in our system, replacing a vet in Ward (76.1 PFF grade) with a younger, markedly cheaper player (77.9 PFF grade for Oliver). That's excellent process. It's taking a bit of a chance, but I also think the loss of McGlinchey won't be all that acute.

Overall, I think the team got a bit better during FA, which is more than you can say for a team like the Eagles, who nonetheless scored higher because they retained more guys than they were expected to, but almost certainly got worse during FA. They lost what amount to two starting LBs and two starting safeties/nickels. Those four players up the middle of the back-seven accounted for 3700 snaps. By contrast, in terms of guys who saw fairly significant playing time, the Niners lost five defensive players who accounted for about 2200 snaps.

Hard for me to disagree too much with the draft review, particularly on process grounds with the early picks, but again, I think this FO has earned the benefit of the doubt on identifying late-round fits. I think PFF does good work, but none of these teams that pay PFF for their numbers are doing any better hitting on talent late than the Niners are.

[CrimsonCrew]

What did McGlichey end up signing for?

5 years, $87.5 million, $35 million guaranteed.

[thesack12]

RT and OT depth certainly have qustions. All teams have holes on their roster, there is no such thing as a concern proof roster. As I have alluded to, considering the allotment of draft picks, I guess I just had different expectations of how those holes could be plugged, at least to what degree anyways.

I always thought that kicking Burford to the outside is an available option. He has the length and athleticism to play tackle and has plenty of college experience on the outside. Although he might be a tad light in mass.

Don't know if he'd be ready for a full time switch to RT, but if he can moonlight out there it will help the overall depth. Feliciano seems solid enough to plug into RG if/when Burford plays RT. Also as discussed the prospect collection and developmental talent is more promising with the interior guys, so there is more potential for viable depth to develop there.

At the end of the day considering we are trying to replace Mike McGlinchey, I personally don't see a huge concern at RT. Although depth at tackle is a different animal. Mike was improved last season, but he was still the weak link of the O-line the majority of the time. The bar at RT is not all that high. It shouldn't be a daunting task for McKivitz to at least come close to providing the caliber of play that we've been used to at RT for the last handful of years. Honestly even living through the growing pains of potentially kicking Burford out there, probably wouldn't suffer a huge dropoff at the position. All that said, McKivitz (or even Burford) could flame out spectacularly, and teams will feast attacking the right side of the line. Still, replacing Mike McGlinchey shouldn't be a scary proposition, we aren't trying to replace Big Trent.... yet.

Speaking of trying to replace Williams, now that the team will (finally) have their full allotment of draft picks back it makes more sense to try and find that replacement after the 2023 draft. Not that you wouldn't want to have a potential heir apparent already in house. But again if we were trying to find that guy, the potential to get him in this past draft was not great. Trent is starting to get up there in age and there was a little bit of chatter he might retire after the NFCCG. However he's still an legitimately elite LT and has 3 more very lucrative years left on his contract. The retirement chatter was seemingly made out of pure emotion in the moment of losing the NFCCG in the fashion they did. So assuming health *crosses fingers* I think we still safely have a year or two until we need to worry about replacing him.

Not so much chatter of it on this board, moreso the twitterverse, but I find it amusing that some 49er fans are trying to claim that this regime doesn't value the OL and doesn't invest in it. Yet they used a 1st rounder on McGlinchey, used a 2nd rounder on Banks, traded multiple picks for Trent Williams, gave Williams a market setting contract extension, and gave out big contracts to 3 different centers (Richburg, Mack, Brendel), traded for Laken Tomlinson then gave him a healthy extension the following year.

I had modest expectations for acquiring impact players this year, but this was a pretty deep draft given all the Covid deferments, and the third round was a spot where we could have added guys who might have the talent to start in the near future. When you have so much money locked up in star players, it becomes even more important to flesh out your depth with cheap players through the draft. If you're also trading away top picks, those later-round picks become even more important.

This FO hates playing rookies, so I viewed this year as a good time to get some developmental guys with starter potential down the road at positions future need. Obviously the FO disagreed with my view and took two guys at the end of the third round who will likely see the field this year, but who don't really have long-term upside that they might have found at other positions. I'm struggling to find good information on wins above replacement for kickers, but for almost everyone except Justin Tucker, it's a pretty volatile position from year to year. And I'm just pretty skeptical a) that Latu will be any good, and b) that he wouldn't have been available much later in the draft.

Every draft is different, and what looks like value at a position going in can change pretty dramatically during the course of the draft. Going into the draft, for instance, I thought we'd have some intriguing options to choose from at DE and TE. That didn't really happen. There was a run on both positions. Guys like Yaya Diaby and Byron Young went higher than expected, and the only DE I liked at 99 or 101 was Isaiah McGuire. I would still have strongly considered him, but I understand not doing so, and he fell almost another full round after we passed on him.

TE was completely picked over and there simply wasn't value at the position in the late third. I thought there was a chance Brenton Strange, Luke Schoonmaker, or Tucker Kraft would have been there, and would have strongly considered both, but they all went much higher. Hell, I thought there was a chance Sam La Porta might be there and he went with the third pick in the second. Given that run on the position, I would have passed on TE in the third and come back to it in the 5th or 6th. That's what literally every team except the Niners did, as we picked Latu and then no one else picked a TE for a round-and-a-half. Now, it's always possible that Latu was the next-most-talented guy in most other teams' views and he wouldn't have made it to the 5th, but I don't personally believe that. A full quarter of the league had drafted a TE by that time, so the pool of teams likely to take a TE was dwindling. Instead of adjusting to the fluid draft, we ended the run at a position. It's just bad process.

By contrast, and somewhat surprisingly, positions like OT and CB had a surprising number of talented players left. There was good value to be had there, as evidenced in part by the number of guys at those positions who flew off the board after we picked (8 of the 19 players taken after Latu played OT of CB, four of each, and that doesn't include Braeden Daniels who is listed as a guard on about 50% of sites).

Some of the pain of this is not as acute because we're talking about only later picks, and this FO has proven to be extremely adept at identifying late-round guys who fit their scheme and coaching them up. It's hard to argue they aren't one of if not the best team in the league at doing so at this point, though admittedly I don't have a great sense of other teams' track records in this area. I think Luter is an intriguing guy, and might be as good or better than some of those CBs who went in the early 4th. I also stand by the decision to wait at DE and take Beal, who I think could be a potential replacement for Ebukam as an undersized guy tools guy who is surprisingly stout against the run and can bring some pass-rushing upside. The LBs seem like intriguing players at positions of need. But this draft left me wanting more in terms of addressing anticipated holes at OT and, to a lesser degree, WR.

And yes, I know you can't address every position in every draft. If we had taken an OT instead of Latu in the third, then took Latu in the 5th, we would have passed on Luter. Then I wouldn't feel good about CB. So I get that argument. But OT depth is a glaring hole, and there was some talent there.

I think there is a fair possibility - especially if we win the SB - that Williams retires after this season. It's a tough game on those big dudes, and he's had other health issues on top of it. He sounds like he's starting to seriously consider hanging them up. We need to be building toward that now. You aren't terribly likely to hit on a LT in the third round or later, but you sure as hell aren't going to hit on anything if you don't take a chance on it. I agree that this FO does value OL, though they don't place a high priority on OGs, seemingly. I'm fine with that. On the OL, unless you can find a true difference maker like Williams, you're better off having five solid guys than a great guy, three good guys, and a liability. But part of my thinking on this FO and a looming OT issue is picturing them trading a first and second round pick, for instance, to move up for an OT next year. I'd prefer to avoid that.

Finally, I think you're underestimating McGlinchey. McGlinchey gets a really bad rap because when he loses, he tends to lose spectacularly (see the Parsons highlight, though to be fair, Parsons also destroyed Kittle on that rep) and in important moments. But he's a really good run blocker and better as a pass blocker than he gets credit for. Despite that, as said previously, I'm fine rolling with McKivitz if the FO has faith in him. It's what is behind him that worries me. And as much as kicking Burford out is a possibility, it's probably not a great idea to weaken two positions along the OL. I had forgotten until yesterday about Moore basically getting two full starts last year and playing alright, so hopefully that wasn't just a fluke, but I don't see an heir apparent to Trent on this roster, and that worries me.

Yeah, draft boards are very much a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type of deal. Official working draft boards vary greatly from team to team, let alone individual's draft boards. And as I've alluded to already, with the dearth of picks available this year I didn't really pay any attention at all to prospects/draft process and thus didn't have any strong enough opinions to have a hierarchy of desire for anybody specific. So I can't really talk about much on that avenue of post draft evaluations.

As for Trent Williams' status, if a 9ers Super bowl win leads to a Williams' retirement I think we would all welcome that eventual outcome, all things considered. The Williams' retirement talk got tamped down rather quickly, which leads you to believe it was just made out of pure emotion after losing the NFCGC in rather unfortunate circumstances. Now if it was a Alex Mack type of situation where he was still on the fence in June/July, then yeah there would be a lot more cause for concern. Williams is also still playing at a very high level, and assuming health, he should still be a very effective player for 2 more years at least. He's also currently the highest paid OL in the game, which is pretty good motivation to not walk away early. As for his potential eventual replacement, the 9ers will enter next draft will there full allotment of picks (plus a few bonus compensatories) so the options to draft a groomable OT will expand. Also considering that the 9ers originally got Williams for only a 3rd and a 5th that goes to show you that there is always potential to grab a very good, established guy off the trade market that can be plugged in immediately.

Regarding Mike McGlinchey, I might be under-estimating him a bit. But If I am, its not by a wide margin. We've already seen how the team has performed without him, and that was with a very pedestrian, replacement level player. Not only did the offense not really miss a beat when Tom Compton replaced Mike when he missed the 2nd half of the 2021 season, but if you value PFF rankings Compton (86.5) actually rated out substantially higher than McGlinchey (69.8). Of course PFF's rankings aren't the end all be all, but they aren't worthless either. Regardless, it does show that replacing McGlinchey shouldn't be a scary proposition to achieve. Actually, there is reason to believe that there is potential that RT might even be upgraded without him.

[thesack12]

https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/betting/2023-teams-hurt-helped-nfl-schedule/#49ers

Read on Twitter

The San Francisco 49ers stand out as the team that was negatively impacted the most. They have a negative-20 day net rest edge.

How is that possible? Well, for starters they play four teams coming off bye weeks:

Week 6 @ Cleveland (who are off a Week 5 bye)
Week 8 vs Cincinnati (who are off a Week 7 bye)
Week 10 @ Jacksonville (both SF and JAX are off Week 9 byes)
Week 15 @Arizona (who are off a Week 14 bye)

Considering both teams have byes ahead of the Week 10 matchup, that particular game does not impact the net rest calculations as the rest disparity sums to zero.

However, the game vs the Bengals in Week 8 gives Cincinnati plus-eight days of rest edge as the 49ers play on Monday Night in Minnesota in Week 7. Thus, the 49ers are coming off of a short-week road game with reduced rest while the Bengals are off a bye.

Three of these four games are on the road.

Additionally, the 49ers must face the Seahawks late in the season (Week 14) when Seattle is off a nice “mini-bye,” having played Week 13 on Thursday night and obtaining a plus-three day rest advantage over their division rival 49ers in Week 14.

The 49ers also play Washington in Week 17 on a short week. The 49ers play on Monday night in Week 16 at home vs the Ravens and then must travel across the country to visit the Commanders for an early 1 pm game just six days later in Week 17.

In total, the 49ers play five games with a rest disadvantage, and the total days of rest disadvantage they have in those games is 26 days.

They get two games with rest advantage: Week 4 vs the Cardinals follows a “mini-bye” off a Week 3 San Francisco home game on Thursday Night, and Week 13 @ the Eagles features an extra three days of rest and prep as the 49ers play Thanksgiving night in Week 12.

Now juxtapose that rest disadvantage totaling 26 days against a team like the Bears, who play zero games with a rest disadvantage and are tied at No. 1 in the NFL with a net rest edge of plus-12 days.

It definitely will be difficult for the 49ers this year.

These guys that dive into the finer details of the schedule find some interesting things.

Its pretty crazy that there is a 32 day rest disparity from the top to bottom.

The 9ers constantly playing on shorter rest than their opponents will surely be a factor this season.

[thesack12]

Read on Twitter

Obviously a direct result of the very unfortunate circumstances that played out in the NFCCG.

Here are the fine details of the change:

One hour and 30 minutes prior to kickoff, each club is required to establish its Active List for the game by notifying the Referee of the players on its Inactive List for that game. Each club may also designate one emergency third quarterback from its 53-player Active/Inactive List (i.e., elevated players are not eligible for designation) who will be eligible to be activated during the game, if the club's first two quarterbacks on its game day Active List are not able to participate in the game due to injury or disqualification (activation cannot be a result of a head coach's in-game decision to remove a player from the game due to performance or conduct). If either of the injured quarterbacks is cleared by the medical staff to return to play, the emergency third quarterback must be removed from the game and is not permitted to continue to play quarterback or any other position, but is eligible to return to the game to play quarterback if another emergency third quarterback situation arises.

A club is not eligible to use these procedures if it carries three quarterbacks on its game day Active List [47- or 48-players in 2023].

Effect: Permits each club to designate an emergency quarterback who can be activated from its Inactive List if the two quarterbacks on the club's Active List are injured or disqualified and unable to participate in the game.

I'm not gonna say that with the likes of Jacob Eason or Kurt Benkert being the potential plug in guy, that the 9ers would have beaten Philly had this option been in play for the NFCCG. However, having a guy take snaps who plays the QB position and can actually physically throw a football, certainly wouldn't have hurt.

[CrimsonCrew]

I had modest expectations for acquiring impact players this year, but this was a pretty deep draft given all the Covid deferments, and the third round was a spot where we could have added guys who might have the talent to start in the near future. When you have so much money locked up in star players, it becomes even more important to flesh out your depth with cheap players through the draft. If you're also trading away top picks, those later-round picks become even more important.

This FO hates playing rookies, so I viewed this year as a good time to get some developmental guys with starter potential down the road at positions future need. Obviously the FO disagreed with my view and took two guys at the end of the third round who will likely see the field this year, but who don't really have long-term upside that they might have found at other positions. I'm struggling to find good information on wins above replacement for kickers, but for almost everyone except Justin Tucker, it's a pretty volatile position from year to year. And I'm just pretty skeptical a) that Latu will be any good, and b) that he wouldn't have been available much later in the draft.

Every draft is different, and what looks like value at a position going in can change pretty dramatically during the course of the draft. Going into the draft, for instance, I thought we'd have some intriguing options to choose from at DE and TE. That didn't really happen. There was a run on both positions. Guys like Yaya Diaby and Byron Young went higher than expected, and the only DE I liked at 99 or 101 was Isaiah McGuire. I would still have strongly considered him, but I understand not doing so, and he fell almost another full round after we passed on him.

TE was completely picked over and there simply wasn't value at the position in the late third. I thought there was a chance Brenton Strange, Luke Schoonmaker, or Tucker Kraft would have been there, and would have strongly considered both, but they all went much higher. Hell, I thought there was a chance Sam La Porta might be there and he went with the third pick in the second. Given that run on the position, I would have passed on TE in the third and come back to it in the 5th or 6th. That's what literally every team except the Niners did, as we picked Latu and then no one else picked a TE for a round-and-a-half. Now, it's always possible that Latu was the next-most-talented guy in most other teams' views and he wouldn't have made it to the 5th, but I don't personally believe that. A full quarter of the league had drafted a TE by that time, so the pool of teams likely to take a TE was dwindling. Instead of adjusting to the fluid draft, we ended the run at a position. It's just bad process.

By contrast, and somewhat surprisingly, positions like OT and CB had a surprising number of talented players left. There was good value to be had there, as evidenced in part by the number of guys at those positions who flew off the board after we picked (8 of the 19 players taken after Latu played OT of CB, four of each, and that doesn't include Braeden Daniels who is listed as a guard on about 50% of sites).

Some of the pain of this is not as acute because we're talking about only later picks, and this FO has proven to be extremely adept at identifying late-round guys who fit their scheme and coaching them up. It's hard to argue they aren't one of if not the best team in the league at doing so at this point, though admittedly I don't have a great sense of other teams' track records in this area. I think Luter is an intriguing guy, and might be as good or better than some of those CBs who went in the early 4th. I also stand by the decision to wait at DE and take Beal, who I think could be a potential replacement for Ebukam as an undersized guy tools guy who is surprisingly stout against the run and can bring some pass-rushing upside. The LBs seem like intriguing players at positions of need. But this draft left me wanting more in terms of addressing anticipated holes at OT and, to a lesser degree, WR.

And yes, I know you can't address every position in every draft. If we had taken an OT instead of Latu in the third, then took Latu in the 5th, we would have passed on Luter. Then I wouldn't feel good about CB. So I get that argument. But OT depth is a glaring hole, and there was some talent there.

I think there is a fair possibility - especially if we win the SB - that Williams retires after this season. It's a tough game on those big dudes, and he's had other health issues on top of it. He sounds like he's starting to seriously consider hanging them up. We need to be building toward that now. You aren't terribly likely to hit on a LT in the third round or later, but you sure as hell aren't going to hit on anything if you don't take a chance on it. I agree that this FO does value OL, though they don't place a high priority on OGs, seemingly. I'm fine with that. On the OL, unless you can find a true difference maker like Williams, you're better off having five solid guys than a great guy, three good guys, and a liability. But part of my thinking on this FO and a looming OT issue is picturing them trading a first and second round pick, for instance, to move up for an OT next year. I'd prefer to avoid that.

Finally, I think you're underestimating McGlinchey. McGlinchey gets a really bad rap because when he loses, he tends to lose spectacularly (see the Parsons highlight, though to be fair, Parsons also destroyed Kittle on that rep) and in important moments. But he's a really good run blocker and better as a pass blocker than he gets credit for. Despite that, as said previously, I'm fine rolling with McKivitz if the FO has faith in him. It's what is behind him that worries me. And as much as kicking Burford out is a possibility, it's probably not a great idea to weaken two positions along the OL. I had forgotten until yesterday about Moore basically getting two full starts last year and playing alright, so hopefully that wasn't just a fluke, but I don't see an heir apparent to Trent on this roster, and that worries me.

Yeah, draft boards are very much a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type of deal. Official working draft boards vary greatly from team to team, let alone individual's draft boards. And as I've alluded to already, with the dearth of picks available this year I didn't really pay any attention at all to prospects/draft process and thus didn't have any strong enough opinions to have a hierarchy of desire for anybody specific. So I can't really talk about much on that avenue of post draft evaluations.

As for Trent Williams' status, if a 9ers Super bowl win leads to a Williams' retirement I think we would all welcome that eventual outcome, all things considered. The Williams' retirement talk got tamped down rather quickly, which leads you to believe it was just made out of pure emotion after losing the NFCGC in rather unfortunate circumstances. Now if it was a Alex Mack type of situation where he was still on the fence in June/July, then yeah there would be a lot more cause for concern. Williams is also still playing at a very high level, and assuming health, he should still be a very effective player for 2 more years at least. He's also currently the highest paid OL in the game, which is pretty good motivation to not walk away early. As for his potential eventual replacement, the 9ers will enter next draft will there full allotment of picks (plus a few bonus compensatories) so the options to draft a groomable OT will expand. Also considering that the 9ers originally got Williams for only a 3rd and a 5th that goes to show you that there is always potential to grab a very good, established guy off the trade market that can be plugged in immediately.

Regarding Mike McGlinchey, I might be under-estimating him a bit. But If I am, its not by a wide margin. We've already seen how the team has performed without him, and that was with a very pedestrian, replacement level player. Not only did the offense not really miss a beat when Tom Compton replaced Mike when he missed the 2nd half of the 2021 season, but if you value PFF rankings Compton (86.5) actually rated out substantially higher than McGlinchey (69.8). Of course PFF's rankings aren't the end all be all, but they aren't worthless either. Regardless, it does show that replacing McGlinchey shouldn't be a scary proposition to achieve. Actually, there is reason to believe that there is potential that RT might even be upgraded without him.

I sure hope Trent plays two more, but I think there's a fair chance he retires after this season. If it's after we win the super bowl, fantastic. But there's certainly a chance he just decides to hang it up. He seems to still want to do it, want to try to win it all, and make some money doing it, but it's not like he needs the money at this point. It is smart not to be surprised by easily anticipated things (like, I don't know, Robbie Gould leaving....).

We do have quite a few high-ish picks next year (at least five through the first three rounds), but we're not likely to land a guy the FO will feel comfortable starting week one of next year. So I think this is a concern. And sure, you might be able to find a utilitarian player on the FA or trade market, but the Niners are already projected to be something like $15 million over the cap going into next year, and that's with Nick Bosa not on the books. We could trim that by cutting Armstead, trading Aiyuk or signing him to a long-term deal, etc., but we won't be in the market for impact LTs.

Citing the fact that we were amazingly able to land the best OT in the league on the cheap, well, we completely lucked into that incredibly unusual situation and were able to pay pennies on the dollar to get a guy coming off cancer and a cancerous relationship with his existing team. That was an exceptional situation, and is exceedingly unlikely to happen again.

Obviously this team should still be strong for the next few years, but we've lost a ton of draft capital with minimal return to date. We have very little cap flexibility. If we aren't finding and developing young talent, this could get ugly quickly. I felt like we could have taken more steps to avoiding that this year, especially in the third round of the draft, and we didn't really. Hopefully I'm wrong, Marathe works his magic, and they hit on some of these late-round guys. I'll certainly give them their props if they do. But I'm also going to hold them to it if we turn into one of these one-and-done playoff teams that the NFC is littered with.

[CrimsonCrew]

Read on Twitter

Obviously a direct result of the very unfortunate circumstances that played out in the NFCCG.

Here are the fine details of the change:

One hour and 30 minutes prior to kickoff, each club is required to establish its Active List for the game by notifying the Referee of the players on its Inactive List for that game. Each club may also designate one emergency third quarterback from its 53-player Active/Inactive List (i.e., elevated players are not eligible for designation) who will be eligible to be activated during the game, if the club's first two quarterbacks on its game day Active List are not able to participate in the game due to injury or disqualification (activation cannot be a result of a head coach's in-game decision to remove a player from the game due to performance or conduct). If either of the injured quarterbacks is cleared by the medical staff to return to play, the emergency third quarterback must be removed from the game and is not permitted to continue to play quarterback or any other position, but is eligible to return to the game to play quarterback if another emergency third quarterback situation arises.

A club is not eligible to use these procedures if it carries three quarterbacks on its game day Active List [47- or 48-players in 2023].

Effect: Permits each club to designate an emergency quarterback who can be activated from its Inactive List if the two quarterbacks on the club's Active List are injured or disqualified and unable to participate in the game.

I'm not gonna say that with the likes of Jacob Eason or Kurt Benkert being the potential plug in guy, that the 9ers would have beaten Philly had this option been in play for the NFCCG. However, having a guy take snaps who plays the QB position and can actually physically throw a football, certainly wouldn't have hurt.

That's interesting. The player has to be on the 53-man roster, so the Niners wouldn't have had a player who qualified last year regardless. Will be interesting to see if more teams carry a third QB this year. Granted it's hard to think of many other games that have ended with two QBs knocked out.

[CrimsonCrew]

Lots of optimistic talk about Purdy being ready for week one. That scares the hell out of me. When is the last time we had a player return from a serious injury without setback even on schedule, much less ahead of schedule? I just can't shake the feeling that something is going to go horribly awry on this one, too. Nut maybe this will buck the trend.

I hope this doesn't prevent us from giving Trey a good, long look either. As I've said before, if it were up to me, I'd be giving Trey a full half in every (I guess just both, these days) preseason games. Dude needs as much live action as we can possibly get him.

[CrimsonCrew]

Some talk that the Raiders could cut Garoppolo over the foot injury, which still hasn't healed. Got to assume that would cost the Niners the third-round pick they were expected to pick up for McGlinchey. Worth monitoring.

[Pattersonca65]

Some talk that the Raiders could cut Garoppolo over the foot injury, which still hasn't healed. Got to assume that would cost the Niners the third-round pick they were expected to pick up for McGlinchey. Worth monitoring.

One poster on another site claimed it wouldn't cost them the comp pick but I haven't been able to find any info to confirm that.

[Jikkle]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[CrimsonCrew]

I don't think the dink and dunk label is accurate, and probably arose because of Brock's relatively weaker arm rather than the actual results. That said, the Seattle game is something of an outlier as they had arguably the worst pass-rush in the league last year, so he had the luxury of sitting back and picking apart their inexperienced corners.

Not meant as a criticism at all. He had time in the pocket, and he absolutely shredded them in the second half, which is all you can ask of anyone. Just that it's not a "typical" performance.

[Cactus Jack]

I don't think the dink and dunk label is accurate, and probably arose because of Brock's relatively weaker arm rather than the actual results. That said, the Seattle game is something of an outlier as they had arguably the worst pass-rush in the league last year, so he had the luxury of sitting back and picking apart their inexperienced corners.

Not meant as a criticism at all. He had time in the pocket, and he absolutely shredded them in the second half, which is all you can ask of anyone. Just that it's not a "typical" performance.

Accurate. Outside of Uchenna Nwosu they didn't have anyone who could consistently get pressure. It's pretty telling when they did a complete makeover of the d-line this offseason. Non of the interior guys upfront are still with the team.

You combine that with a lack of depth at LB & inexperience at CB. It was a rough go.

Not having either Bobby Wagner or Jamal Adams last season played a huge part. They didn't have anyone who could fill those shoes. Lack of leadership.

[Pattersonca65]

I don't think the dink and dunk label is accurate, and probably arose because of Brock's relatively weaker arm rather than the actual results. That said, the Seattle game is something of an outlier as they had arguably the worst pass-rush in the league last year, so he had the luxury of sitting back and picking apart their inexperienced corners.

Not meant as a criticism at all. He had time in the pocket, and he absolutely shredded them in the second half, which is all you can ask of anyone. Just that it's not a "typical" performance.

Chris Simms talked with Shanahan recently. It was posted on the webzone. There are things Purdy has to work on which he has acknowledged including throwing more outside the numbers and not scrambling from the pocket too soon.

[Jikkle]

I don't think the dink and dunk label is accurate, and probably arose because of Brock's relatively weaker arm rather than the actual results. That said, the Seattle game is something of an outlier as they had arguably the worst pass-rush in the league last year, so he had the luxury of sitting back and picking apart their inexperienced corners.

Not meant as a criticism at all. He had time in the pocket, and he absolutely shredded them in the second half, which is all you can ask of anyone. Just that it's not a "typical" performance.

Yeah I'd say he got that label from some because he really didn't throw outside the numbers much and lived in that Jimmy G range. I mean ultimately Brock was just a better version of Jimmy G and probably what the 9ers hoped Jimmy G would be for them.

I'm just cautiously optimistic on Purdy and not in the camp that wants to anoint him the next Montana. My fear is he ends up being in that Cousins class of QB that's an above-average overachiever that will do well and win a lot of games but fall short when he plays against the upper echelon of teams with elite defenses and/or elite QBs.

[CrimsonCrew]

I don't think the dink and dunk label is accurate, and probably arose because of Brock's relatively weaker arm rather than the actual results. That said, the Seattle game is something of an outlier as they had arguably the worst pass-rush in the league last year, so he had the luxury of sitting back and picking apart their inexperienced corners.

Not meant as a criticism at all. He had time in the pocket, and he absolutely shredded them in the second half, which is all you can ask of anyone. Just that it's not a "typical" performance.

Yeah I'd say he got that label from some because he really didn't throw outside the numbers much and lived in that Jimmy G range. I mean ultimately Brock was just a better version of Jimmy G and probably what the 9ers hoped Jimmy G would be for them.

I'm just cautiously optimistic on Purdy and not in the camp that wants to anoint him the next Montana. My fear is he ends up being in that Cousins class of QB that's an above-average overachiever that will do well and win a lot of games but fall short when he plays against the upper echelon of teams with elite defenses and/or elite QBs.

I do think a lot of people are coming close to writing off Purdy very prematurely. He played remarkably for a rookie - any rookie, much less a guy with such little offseason work who was thrown into a tough situation given the team around him and the weight of expectations. Although there are reasons to question his ultimate upside, it would be absolutely absurd to think he's peaked. But that seems to be the attitude of many in the national media and the fanbase.

Now, yes, we have seen guys really excel in a limited sample and then come back down to earth, like Garoppolo in 2017, but Garoppolo was in his fourth season in the league at that point and was thrown into a situation with no pressure at all. We were 1-10 and out of the playoff hunt by the time he came in. What Purdy did, as a rookie in an incredibly high pressure situation, really was extraordinary. And despite the talent, it was no gimme. It certainly doesn't mean he'll make the jump to elite QB, but we've got to assume that he still has plenty of room for improvement.

That said, like Jimmy, he'll likely be limited by his physical abilities. The good news is that, in this offense, being an athletic freak isn't such a big deal. And if Jimmy had just cut down on the idiotic plays, we probably have at least one and possibly more Lombardis even with his limitations. The concern comes if and when we have to extend Purdy.

I'm a firm believer that it's really hard to win in this league with a guy like Garoppolo - probably a top-20 QB at any given time (assuming he's better on a given day than most rookies, for instance), but closer to 20 than to 10 - making even 75% of what the top players make. We were able to do it because we entered the situation with a ton of cap space, and we've been kicking the cap hit can down the road for years. But that will have to end at some point. At that point, if Purdy can't be "the guy" even with a mediocre supporting cast, then we're back to square one - or worse, in QB purgatory like the Vikings with Cousins. But that's two or three years away, so it's awfully premature to get worked up about it now.

The only thing that should and does cause some serious consternation about the QB situation is the question of if we are committing to Purdy too early and, as a result, giving up on Lance, a guy who does have undeniable upside that could surpass Purdy's. And that is a real concern. But my view is that it's on Lance to show that he deserves a shot to challenge for the job with his play in practices and the preseason before we even get to talking about the regular season. Hopefully he'll do so and then we'll have a good problem on our hands.

[Pattersonca65]

I don't think the dink and dunk label is accurate, and probably arose because of Brock's relatively weaker arm rather than the actual results. That said, the Seattle game is something of an outlier as they had arguably the worst pass-rush in the league last year, so he had the luxury of sitting back and picking apart their inexperienced corners.

Not meant as a criticism at all. He had time in the pocket, and he absolutely shredded them in the second half, which is all you can ask of anyone. Just that it's not a "typical" performance.

Yeah I'd say he got that label from some because he really didn't throw outside the numbers much and lived in that Jimmy G range. I mean ultimately Brock was just a better version of Jimmy G and probably what the 9ers hoped Jimmy G would be for them.

I'm just cautiously optimistic on Purdy and not in the camp that wants to anoint him the next Montana. My fear is he ends up being in that Cousins class of QB that's an above-average overachiever that will do well and win a lot of games but fall short when he plays against the upper echelon of teams with elite defenses and/or elite QBs.

I do think a lot of people are coming close to writing off Purdy very prematurely. He played remarkably for a rookie - any rookie, much less a guy with such little offseason work who was thrown into a tough situation given the team around him and the weight of expectations. Although there are reasons to question his ultimate upside, it would be absolutely absurd to think he's peaked. But that seems to be the attitude of many in the national media and the fanbase.

Now, yes, we have seen guys really excel in a limited sample and then come back down to earth, like Garoppolo in 2017, but Garoppolo was in his fourth season in the league at that point and was thrown into a situation with no pressure at all. We were 1-10 and out of the playoff hunt by the time he came in. What Purdy did, as a rookie in an incredibly high pressure situation, really was extraordinary. And despite the talent, it was no gimme. It certainly doesn't mean he'll make the jump to elite QB, but we've got to assume that he still has plenty of room for improvement.

That said, like Jimmy, he'll likely be limited by his physical abilities. The good news is that, in this offense, being an athletic freak isn't such a big deal. And if Jimmy had just cut down on the idiotic plays, we probably have at least one and possibly more Lombardis even with his limitations. The concern comes if and when we have to extend Purdy.

I'm a firm believer that it's really hard to win in this league with a guy like Garoppolo - probably a top-20 QB at any given time (assuming he's better on a given day than most rookies, for instance), but closer to 20 than to 10 - making even 75% of what the top players make. We were able to do it because we entered the situation with a ton of cap space, and we've been kicking the cap hit can down the road for years. But that will have to end at some point. At that point, if Purdy can't be "the guy" even with a mediocre supporting cast, then we're back to square one - or worse, in QB purgatory like the Vikings with Cousins. But that's two or three years away, so it's awfully premature to get worked up about it now.

The only thing that should and does cause some serious consternation about the QB situation is the question of if we are committing to Purdy too early and, as a result, giving up on Lance, a guy who does have undeniable upside that could surpass Purdy's. And that is a real concern. But my view is that it's on Lance to show that he deserves a shot to challenge for the job with his play in practices and the preseason before we even get to talking about the regular season. Hopefully he'll do so and then we'll have a good problem on our hands.

This is a bit of what Chris Simms said after discussing with Shanahan. When Jimmy G went down last year I thought the season was probably over with Brock Purdy starting. He far exceeded my expectations. At the same time fans need to remember he is still a rookie with plenty to learn at the NFL level.


https://www.ninersnation.com/2023/6/6/23751317/brock-purdy-kyle-shanahan-49ers

[Jikkle]

Yeah I'd say he got that label from some because he really didn't throw outside the numbers much and lived in that Jimmy G range. I mean ultimately Brock was just a better version of Jimmy G and probably what the 9ers hoped Jimmy G would be for them.

I'm just cautiously optimistic on Purdy and not in the camp that wants to anoint him the next Montana. My fear is he ends up being in that Cousins class of QB that's an above-average overachiever that will do well and win a lot of games but fall short when he plays against the upper echelon of teams with elite defenses and/or elite QBs.

I do think a lot of people are coming close to writing off Purdy very prematurely. He played remarkably for a rookie - any rookie, much less a guy with such little offseason work who was thrown into a tough situation given the team around him and the weight of expectations. Although there are reasons to question his ultimate upside, it would be absolutely absurd to think he's peaked. But that seems to be the attitude of many in the national media and the fanbase.

Now, yes, we have seen guys really excel in a limited sample and then come back down to earth, like Garoppolo in 2017, but Garoppolo was in his fourth season in the league at that point and was thrown into a situation with no pressure at all. We were 1-10 and out of the playoff hunt by the time he came in. What Purdy did, as a rookie in an incredibly high pressure situation, really was extraordinary. And despite the talent, it was no gimme. It certainly doesn't mean he'll make the jump to elite QB, but we've got to assume that he still has plenty of room for improvement.

That said, like Jimmy, he'll likely be limited by his physical abilities. The good news is that, in this offense, being an athletic freak isn't such a big deal. And if Jimmy had just cut down on the idiotic plays, we probably have at least one and possibly more Lombardis even with his limitations. The concern comes if and when we have to extend Purdy.

I'm a firm believer that it's really hard to win in this league with a guy like Garoppolo - probably a top-20 QB at any given time (assuming he's better on a given day than most rookies, for instance), but closer to 20 than to 10 - making even 75% of what the top players make. We were able to do it because we entered the situation with a ton of cap space, and we've been kicking the cap hit can down the road for years. But that will have to end at some point. At that point, if Purdy can't be "the guy" even with a mediocre supporting cast, then we're back to square one - or worse, in QB purgatory like the Vikings with Cousins. But that's two or three years away, so it's awfully premature to get worked up about it now.

The only thing that should and does cause some serious consternation about the QB situation is the question of if we are committing to Purdy too early and, as a result, giving up on Lance, a guy who does have undeniable upside that could surpass Purdy's. And that is a real concern. But my view is that it's on Lance to show that he deserves a shot to challenge for the job with his play in practices and the preseason before we even get to talking about the regular season. Hopefully he'll do so and then we'll have a good problem on our hands.

This is a bit of what Chris Simms said after discussing with Shanahan. When Jimmy G went down last year I thought the season was probably over with Brock Purdy starting. He far exceeded my expectations. At the same time fans need to remember he is still a rookie with plenty to learn at the NFL level.


https://www.ninersnation.com/2023/6/6/23751317/brock-purdy-kyle-shanahan-49ers

He does have room for improvement but I think Purdy is more the Mac Jones type that's closer to tapping out their ceiling than not. He doesn't have that untapped potential like you could say with Lance, Fields, Richardson, etc which means he's probably not going to sniff top 5 QB territory but you're not getting a flat-out bust either and it looks like you'll have someone that's pretty good.