2020 Draft Talk

[whitehops]

3 hours ago, Virginia Viking said:

So...how does the team upgrade it's offensive line personnel?  Since there was no ability to do anything in free agency to upgrade...and now we have a poor OL draft choices by the time the Vikings pick...what's the answer?  We have a quarterback that is much better...MUCH better when he has a somewhat stable pocket.  The reason the Vikings lost to both the Packers and the Bears last season was because their pass rush overpowered our line.  Again, what's the solution?

there are lots of things you can do besides making splash signings in free agency or investing multiple high picks.

- signing solid veterans on moderate deals (berger, kline)

- count on internal improvement 

- improve with continuity (big for us since we just changed schemes)

taking an OT with a first rounder doesn't make sense unless they can start from day one and project to be a long-term starter (like the top 4 tackles in this class). taking an iOL with a first rounder doesn't make sense because most of the top ones will likely still be available at our second round pick. garrett bradbury is a perfect example of what can happen when you spend a first rounder on an iOL. best case scenario you have a top 5-10 player at the position but an average corner, for example, would still be more valuable. worst case they under-perform and you now spent a very valuable asset on an bad player at a position that isn't that valuable. the risk just isn't worth the reward. i understand why they picked bradbury as you NEED a center with his athleticism to execute a wide zone scheme but obviously the pick is not looking good thus far.

also, look at the draft prior to last season. it was a STACKED iOL class and most went before our pick so when we picked mike hughes a lot of people were outraged we didn't take one of the bottom tier 1 guys/top tier 2 guys. we settled for brian o'neill at the end of the second. fast forward to now and most of those round 1/2 iOL players are really under-performing their draft status (like bradbury) and mike hughes is starting for us. actually if you look at all the OL in that draft class i think you could argue that the ones taken in round two are better than the ones taken in round one. quenton nelson is obviously the best by far but all the other good ones are from round 2.

i know the draft is a crapshoot and hindsight is 20/20 but the point is you have to evaluate risk/reward, ROI, diminishing returns, etc. before making a decision. 

 

14 hours ago, VikeManDan said:

As you say about 2 OL, 2 CBs would also be an “extreme mis-use of assets”. 

 

i agree it would be a mis-use of assets, but the hypothetical scenario was if we DID double down on a position group. my personal thought is that they take the BPA approach at either CB, WR, 3-tech or edge player with our two first round picks. i just think given the positional strengths of the draft class it will most likely be a WR/CB combination. i expect the top four OTs in the class to all go in the top 15 but if any of them fall i'd be pounding the table to take one of them. 

[VikeManDan]

3 minutes ago, whitehops said:

i just think given the positional strengths of the draft class it will most likely be a WR/CB combination.

Why would WR make sense in the 1st if it is a positional strength of the draft class?

Right now I'm leaning any combination of CB/OL/DL at 22 and 25.

[SemperFeist]

Just now, VikeManDan said:

Why would WR make sense in the 1st if it is a positional strength of the draft class?

👆 

[whitehops]

12 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

Why would WR make sense in the 1st if it is a positional strength of the draft class?

Right now I'm leaning any combination of CB/OL/DL at 22 and 25.

positional value, room to move down if there are multiple guys left in that tier.

[RpMc]

1 minute ago, whitehops said:

positional value, room to move down if there are multiple guys left in that tier.

It feels as if you're contradicting yourself here - saying wide receiver will likely be one of the first round picks, but then saying that there's room to move down and get players in the same tier.

It makes zero sense to draft a receiver in the first round in this draft outside of one of the top three guys falling.  There are so many similarly ranked receivers, heck, Eric DeCosta of Baltimore just came out and said you could get a starting caliber receiver in the 5th round this year.

[AWinfield26]

20 hours ago, RpMc said:

They aren't going to spend two first round picks on offensive lineman.

The argument that they've ignored the offensive line for years is one that comes up a lot, and is not based in reality.  They've spent a first, second, or third round pick on the line the last three years (three picks on the line last year), shelled out contracts for players like Riley Reiff, Mike Remmers, Alex Boone, and Josh Klein while being in on players like Kelechi Osemele and Rick Wagner before they signed elsewhere.

The problem hasn't been asset allocation, it's been the players they've spent the assets on and the changing of offensive line coaches, priorities, and schemes that rely on different types of line players.

I'm not sure I can completely agree with you here. To say we haven't ignored this problem is wrong. I agree somewhat with the scheme change but that has only been the last 2 seasons. Other than Bradbury, Oneil and Eflein we haven't really made a point to prioritize drafting OL. After those three you'd have to go all the way back to 2012 to see when we took an OL before round 3. Do you really expect to solve the OL with Day 3 picked players? When we look at some of the good OL across the NFL those teams make it a priority. Sometimes drafting OL with multiply first round picks. Those assets we signed we knew were no better than average, to me that's not addressing the problem. Those signings we simply made just to get by. We will never get anywhere without addressing this problem. The last good OL we had was what 10 years ago, to me this is just unacceptable. 

[RpMc]

2017: The team brought in Reiff, Remmers, and Elflein (Danny Isidora drafted too) in to go with Nick Easton and Joe Berger, Easton got injured prior to 2018 after an encouraging 2017 - team loses their offensive coordinator - Eflein suffers a major injury at the end of the year as well.

2018: New offensive coordinator that's fired part way through the year, Brian O'Neill brought in (Colby Gossett also drafted) and Remmers kicked down to RG.  Tom Compton forced to start at LG because of the injury to Easton, Elflein wasn't the same as he was his rookie year.

2019:  Offensive run scheme changed to focus on wide zone, Josh Klein signed, Garrett Bradbury drafted, Dru Samia drafted, Oli Udoh drafted - offensive line now consists of
LT - Highly compensated free agent, former first round pick
LG - 3rd round pick (2017)
C - 1st round pick (2019)
RG - free agent
RT - 2nd round pick (2020)

In the period leading up to 2016, yes, they did not address the offensive line like they should have (although they did try to sign Kelechi Osemele), but for the last three years, they've spent a lot of resources in that area... they're also on their 4th offensive coordinator since 2017 (Shurmur, DeFillipo, Stefanski, and now Kubiak).

-----

The 49ers last year  had TWO of their own first round picks on the line (McGlinchey and Staley) the other mainstays were Laken Tomlinson, acquired via trade after bombing as a first round pick in Detroit,  free agent Weston Richburg, and their own 6th/7th/UDFA players

The Packers had Bulaga (1st), Bahktiari (4th), Turner (FA), Jenkins (2nd), Linsley (5th)

The only outlier in terms of spending first round picks on the position group is the Cowboys and their majority 1st round offensive line, but what did it get them?  The large investment in the OL led to them being talent poor in the front seven of the defense (and a little on the back end), for years.

 

[AWinfield26]

I agree with the part about the coaches. That definitely doesn't help by no means to have a revolving door of OC and OL coaches. At the same time what really constitutes spending resources on an issue? Does spending late round picks on OL really count as spending a resource? Do we really expect those guys to solve the issues along the OL? With all those moves you listed, how many of those guys are still on the team? 

[RpMc]

I'd consider free agent contracts for starting caliber lineman, and Day 1 or Day 2 picks as an investment

Since 2017 thats: Reiff, Remmers, Elflein, O'Neill, Klein, and Bradbury - 6 players for a five person offensive line in three years; three free agents and three draft picks.  Again, the issue the last three years HAS NOT been ignoring the offensive line.  It's been the shift in coaching staff/philosophy and mismatched players due to that, combined with the missing on the evals of the players brought in.

In addition to that, they've drafted four additional developmental players (Isidora, Gossett, Samia, and Udoh) - they've also acquired developmental prospects in Rashod Hill and Aviante Collins.

11 offensive line players brought in in three years (Hill was brought in in 2016) in addition to players like Brett Jones and Dakota Dozier brought in just to be depth players; 6 of them with "starter" assets used, and five more developmental players.

One last time, asset allocation HAS NOT been the issue. Scheme changes that make the previous year's free agent/draft additions worthless, inconsistency in coaching, and identifying the correct players has been the issue. For the first time since 2016 (where even then, Norv dropped out part way through the year) we are likely to have consistency in scheme/message.

[swede700]

I've generally placed the blame on that solely, the lack of consistency in coaching.  All you've got to look at is this run:

2014-2015 - Jeff Davidson, Hank Fraley

2016 - Tony Sparano, Hank Fraley

2017 - Tony Sparano, Andrew Janocko

2018 - Clancy Barone, Andrew Janocko

2019 - Rick Dennison, Andrew Janocko

2020 - Rick Dennison, Phil Rauscher

Tie that in with all the changes in OCs, it's no wonder they've never had any consistency or significant improvement on the offensive line. At the very least this time, we're going to have the same scheme for a 2nd year, even if it's not the same coordinator. 

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, RpMc said:

The 49ers last year  had TWO of their own first round picks on the line (McGlinchey and Staley) the other mainstays were Laken Tomlinson, acquired via trade after bombing as a first round pick in Detroit,  free agent Weston Richburg, and their own 6th/7th/UDFA players

The 49ers line last year is an interesting case study. I just looked into what the Vikings would have had to sacrifice to have that line.

The Vikings could have moved back to get pick 28 and considerations to get Joe Staley. This would have cost them Adrian Peterson. Ouch. Chester Taylor was fine but he was no Frank Gore. Maybe a trade up to 28 from the second round would look better and since I have, you know, hindsight...

The Vikings could have traded back in 2015 to the 28th pick where Laken Tomlinson was drafted. This would have cost the Vikings Trae Waynes. That is a pretty easy cost to live with.

In 2018, the Vikings would have had to trade up to the 9th spot to take Mike McGlinchey. This would have cost the Vikings Mike Hughes and most of the theoretically banked considerations from the trades back from Peterson and Waynes. 

Garland was undrafted. But You could say that if the Vikings picked him up in the 7th round back then they could have saved the first round pick used on Garett Bradbury. That would have probably been used for a CB owing to the previous hypothetical losses of Waynes and Hughes. 

Mike Person was a 7th rounder. The Vikings could have picked from a whole host of guys they took a stab at in the 5th round or later to find a guy to sacrifice to draft Person (Stephen Burton, D'Aundre Reed, Ross Homan, Brandon Fusco, Mistral Raymond, DeMarcus Love,  Brandon Burton). Incidentally, one of the O-line players they did take would have been the toughest sacrifice -- Brandon Fusco, who had a fire in his belly.

I understand that is all hypothetical and very hindsight. Losing out on Peterson is a tough hypothetical pill to swallow but focusing on offensive line instead of the other positions in the rest of the cases looks pretty appealing in hindsight. Joe Staley isn't a bad consolation prize and could have saved the Vikings the high pick they used on Matt Kalil. They could have used that pick to get their RB - Trent Richardson *snickersnort*. Nope, since it is my revision of history I'll take Blackmon? Claiborne? Nope. I'll go with David DeCastro.

I don't know what other resources the 49ers invested along the way to get where they were last year but I am sure there was a fair amount of that too.

What does this all mean for the 2020 draft? I would say it means the team should be willing to sacrifice drafting players at other positions to build their offensive line. Even in cases where they lose out on an elite player, the offensive linemen is a lot more likely to be useful to the team for longer when they connect. So, they ought to keep swinging hard at offensive linemen so that they'll knock one out of the park when they connect.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Cearbhall

[RpMc]

8 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I've generally placed the blame on that solely, the lack of consistency in coaching.  All you've got to look at is this run:

2014-2015 - Jeff Davidson, Hank Fraley

2016 - Tony Sparano, Hank Fraley

2017 - Tony Sparano, Andrew Janocko

2018 - Clancy Barone, Andrew Janocko

2019 - Rick Dennison, Andrew Janocko

2020 - Rick Dennison, Phil Rauscher

Tie that in with all the changes in OCs, it's no wonder they've never had any consistency or significant improvement on the offensive line. At the very least this time, we're going to have the same scheme for a 2nd year, even if it's not the same coordinator. 

honestly this is why ive preferred to have an offensive minded HC.

[HeydudemanG]

2 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

👆 

Because WR might be the BPA available in the first.

[swede700]

6 minutes ago, RpMc said:

honestly this is why ive preferred to have an offensive minded HC.

I generally prefer the opposite, because the chance of being in every game is much higher than with an offensive-minded HC.  I also don't like to watch Arena League-type shootouts.  Once in awhile is fine, but I don't want to see it on a weekly basis.

Edited April 10, 2020 by swede700

[SemperFeist]

7 minutes ago, HeydudemanG said:

Because WR might be the BPA available in the first.

BPA is a myth