thesack12 wrote: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.
