All that said, McKivitz (or even Burford) could flame out spectacularly, and teams will feast attacking the right side of the line. Honestly even living through the growing pains of potentially kicking Burford out there, probably wouldn't suffer a huge dropoff at the position. 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. Mike was improved last season, but he was still the weak link of the O-line the majority of the time. Although depth at tackle is a different animal. 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.Īt the end of the day considering we are trying to replace Mike McGlinchey, I personally don't see a huge concern at RT. Feliciano seems solid enough to plug into RG if/when Burford plays RT. Although he might be a tad light in mass.ĭon'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. He has the length and athleticism to play tackle and has plenty of college experience on the outside. I always thought that kicking Burford to the outside is an available option. 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. All teams have holes on their roster, there is no such thing as a concern proof roster. Thesack12 wrote:RT and OT depth certainly have qustions. 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. 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. By contrast, in terms of guys who saw fairly significant playing time, the Niners lost five defensive players who accounted for about 2200 snaps. Those four players up the middle of the back-seven accounted for 3700 snaps. They lost what amount to two starting LBs and two starting safeties/nickels. 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. It's taking a bit of a chance, but I also think the loss of McGlinchey won't be all that acute. 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). He's been a good slot corner who will be another year removed from serious injury. The Isaiah Oliver pick also seems very under-the-radar. They are really exceptional at identifying fits and getting the most out of them, especially along the DL. There was some hand-wringing when we lost Arden Key, and the team didn't feel that at all. 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. 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. They reached relative to the PFF and consensus big boards at most picks and drafted a kicker in the third round. In the draft, it’s difficult to argue that anything the 49ers did was the result of good process. 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. Hargrave accounted for 57 total pressures last season for the Eagles, more than double any 49ers interior lineman. The addition of Javon Hargrave to an already dominant defense is the only thing saving this from a very bad offseason grade.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |