NFC West Roundtable: Offensive Guard
by John Morgan on Jun 26, 2009 12:12 PM PDT
102 comments
Turf Show Times
Blogger: VanRam
Starting at left guard for the Rams is 2008's big free agent acquisition, Jacob Bell. Signed away from the Titans, Bell dealt with a hamstring injury and watched his play fade down the stretch, to the point where when combined with the Rams' undersized centers Nick Leckey and Brett Romberg the middle of the line became a real liability. Part of the problem was that Bell played at 280 lbs last season, well below his listed weight of 296 lbs. Whether that was due to the hamstring injury or poor choices in an offseason conditioning program is irrelevant now, and the team was most relieved when Bell showed up for spring minicamps at 300 lbs, thanks to the addition of a personal chef. We should all be so lucky. Bell had a solid track record with the Titans, and will benefit greatly with the addition of C Jason Brown to his right.
On the right side is Richie Incognito, who earned a reputation as a bit of meathead last year thanks to some unpopular comments and gestures directed toward Rams fans...or the lack thereof. Meathead or not, Incognito is one of the nastiest players in the game and a tough blocker. He came apart mentally last year, racking up more than his share of dumb, costly penalties as his attitude unraveled along with the team's play. The coaching change should really benefit a talented Incognito, who constantly needs a hot burning fire under his posterior. He is, arguably, the Rams best lineman.
Behind those two, the Rams have some solid depth at G. John Greco, a third round pick from the 2008 draft, did nothing to hurt his standing with the team in nine appearances last year. Greco uses his size and athleticism well, but could stand to play a little tougher. Mark Setterstrom returns this season after having missed the entire 2008 season with a knee injury. Setterstrom was pressed into starting duty late in 2006, and played well enough to earn a starting job out of camp the next year before getting hurt in week 3. Prior to the 2008 season, he was expected to compete for the starting center job before a camp injury ended his season before it began. He's reportedly at 100%, but his injury history is a huge concern. Greco and Setterstrom are the primary backups at G, and the team is very happy to have them should injury again befall the middle of the offensive line. There's also the versatile Adam Goldberg (see our OT write up), who has filled in nicely at times on the left and right over the last few seasons.
The Rams also helped themselves by signing a couple of very interesting guard prospects among this year's crop of undrafted rookie free agents. Many were surprised when Western Missouri G Roger Allen was not drafted this year. An injury that prevented him from working out at the Combine, a rare invite in the first place for a Missouri Western State player, likely contributed to that. All Mountain West Conference guard Ray Feinga, from BYU, will also be competing for a spot on the depth chart, and has looked good in the no-pad practices of spring. Hopefully, these guys give the Rams that nice to have problem of too much of a good thing.
All in all, I give the Rams a B at guard. If Bell can play to expectations, this could be one really good unit.
Arizona Cardinals
Blogger: cgolden
The Cardinals guards have the advantage of being dependable, experienced starters but the combo of Reggie Wells and Deuce Lutui don't exactly inspire a ton of confidence in the franchise's fans. Left guard Reggie Wells, quite possibility the best sixth round pick in franchise history, has started 74 games (including 48 consecutive) since being drafted in 2003 and is the type of player who does quite a bit of things well but doesn't excel in any area. Right guard Deuce Lutui, a second round pick from 2006, has been one of the more frustrating players to watch in recent years. He's started 40 games since being drafted but so far his reputation for picking up false starts and personal foul penalties far exceeds his instances of quality play. He improved during the second half of the 2008 season but if one of the 'starting five' from last year doesn't return to the starting lineup this season, it'll very likely be Lutui.
Providing depth at the guard position is a host of characters including Brandon Keith, Elton Brown, Herman Johnson and Trevor Canfield. Keith was drafted as a tackle and most expect him to end up outside eventually but he's been working behind Lutui this off season. The conspiracy theory, championed by yours truly, is that the coaching staff is hoping that Keith will take the starting job from Lutui this year before moving to one of the tackle spots in 2010. Keith, last year's seventh round pick, has drawn raves reviews since being drafted and he's got the size, strength and quickness to provide an upgrade at the position. Elton Brown has been the Cardinals top backup on the inside for several seasons and after getting no interest on the free agent market, he's back on a one year deal. Brown has competed with Lutui at right guard for two straight seasons and he has quite a few fans who think he could be just as effective, if not more, than Lutui. Herman Johnson, this year's fifth round pick, is currently working at right tackle after spending nearly his entire college career at guard. He might stay at tackle this season but if injuries strike and he's needed, I'm sure he'd slide down. Trevor Canfield, this year's seventh round pick, is primarily a guard, although he might see some time at center as well. The deck is stacked against him based on the amount of experienced depth ahead of him but some scouts had a third or fourth round grade on him coming out of Cincinnati.
Overall this group has a ton of depth and would be able to withstand one or even two significant injuries, but they don't have any one guy who stands above the rest as a really good player. Based on the starters I'd lean towards a C but when I consider all of the depth, I feel like they are much closer to a B.
San Francisco 49ers
Blogger: Fooch
Although it's probably too soon to tell, the 49ers seem to be developing a solid pair of guards. In 2008 the team selected Chilo Rachal in the second round. After sitting on the bench during the tail end of the Mike Nolan era, Rachal was promoted into the starting lineup by newly minted head coach Mike Singletary. Singletary had been impressed with Rachal in practice and decided to throw him into the fire. Rachal had plenty of problems as a rookie, but he showed enough talent to secure a starting position in 2009, barring injury.
On the other side of the line, Dave Baas has also likely secured a starting spot for 2009. The former second round pick was on the bench behind Adam Snyder, but was promoted following the firing of Mike Nolan. Baas finished the season at left guard, while Snyder moved back over to his traditional tackle role. Snyder is likely going to battle Marvel Smith for playing time as a tackle this season. However, he can easily swing over to guard if there are any injury issues. Looking ahead, he might even get another crack to start at guard after this season. Baas is a free agent and 49ers GM Scot McCloughan has made it known that he is not a fan of investing large dollar figures in starting guards (see Smiley, Justin). However, for 2009, a healthy 49ers team would seem to be set at guard.
The 49ers have some undrafted free agents in camp, but in reality the only other backup option is Tony Wragge. Wragge is an all purpose backup who can play both center and guard. He won't win a job in training camp, but will provide solid support as a backup.
Overall, I'm going to go out on a limb and give the guards a B. Why higher than the tackles and first round talent Staley? Well, a lot of this depends on how Chilo Rachal continues to develop in his second season and I'm feeling quite optimistic about it. Baas will likely be starting from the get go meaning the line will have sufficient time to develop some solid chemistry, which is big for them. Consider this like the tackle position only rounding up from B-/C+ territory. Grade: B
Seattle Seahawks
Blogger: John Morgan
Seattle has no starting guards. It instead has the field. Let’s twitterize them.
Mike Wahle: Once good and can still run block, but bad in pass-pro and broken down. Shoulder might fall off.
Rob Sims: Pec goes pop, Seahawks flop, this semi-promising guard fails to develop. Good pass-block, bad feet.
Mansfield Wrotto: Mean ass brother used to play DT and blocks like it. Tech coming, but until then: Smash.
Steve Vallos: Upside: Tom Ashworth.
Ray Willis: More valuable at tackle, but beggars can’t be choosers.
Max Unger: Oh please God yes.
The best combination for Seattle would be Sims at right and Unger at left, with Willis filling in where necessary. Unger isn’t very strong at the point, but he’s extremely skilled and employs that skill to be viciously opportunistic. He times his blocks well to upend unbalanced opponents and for someone that rarely looked strong in pass pro, he gets a good number of knockdown blocks. He is, simply, good at football. He’s also a pretty good athlete and should take well to Seattle’s zone system. Sims may or may not. He had a nasty habit of tripping over his own feet in 2007. That earned the ire of Mike Holmgren and helped earn him a bad reputation among fans. He’s very good in pass protection and at right guard maybe won’t need to be terribly agile. He could also develop, because he’s young, but boy could he have used last season, because on the move he's raw, raw, raw.
It’s a less than the sum of its parts bunch, because there’s very little stability and each has some fatal flaw that could prove their professional doom. Still, it’s a talented bunch, with better, deeper talent than you’ll find on many rosters, and that alone keeps this from being an "F". I’ll grade them "D" knowing they could gel and be better, or they could flunk in shifts, giving Seattle a revolving door of failure the holiday season through.
0 recs |
102 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yeah.
I don’t disagree with John. But it was kind of surprising, this one. I guess I didn’t realize how bad the guard situation was. Granted, Arizona And San Francisco’s grades are too high. I agree with St. Louis. And some other grades, particularly for the 9ers, are high. But after a while — OK, this is on offense and we know that’s where we’re weaker, talent-wise right now — as these grades continue to roll out, it makes you see how hard-pressed this unit really would be to be above average. If we can’t even make par in the NFC West, it’s not very encouraging.
by jacobstevens on Jun 26, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've figured it out.
In college (and maybe high school, I forget) most classes are have maybe 10 people who get C’s and 5 who get below C’s out of 50. It’s sort of a 30% A, 40% B, 30% worse than B split.
That’s what the rest of the division is grading on, John is grading on the normal 6 teams per letter Grade?
A D would mean we have the worst 7th to 12th worst set of guards. OR it could mean we have the bottom 5% of guards. Either way, the assessment is correct, our guard situation leaves much to be desired, though I suppose it’s not a total lost cause since we do have some experience and some upside in the mix.
by LantermanC on Jun 26, 2009 1:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How will Sims' footwork issues play out in a zone blocking system?
Is that something that will get magnified or downplayed?
by Nate Dogg on Jun 26, 2009 1:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Depends how they run it
Spacing could matter, for instance, but in a general sense, you want good footwork from guards in a zone blocking system.
by John Morgan on Jun 26, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An optimistic footnote:
For all the 2005 talk, to me, Seattle’s current guards most resemble Seattle’s then linebackers. Unger could be great at left guard, and is a Tatupu-like skills and talent profile. Especially in the sense that he should be able to contribute right away. There’s no clear Leroy Hill, but Seattle used the field to fill that position in 2005. Wrotto could, like Hill, be a guy that isn’t well rounded, but is noteworthy for what he does well. And sort of like Tubbs made everyone around him better, Spencer is capable of having that impact Seattle’s interior offensive line.
The point it, the unit is below average, but the talent isn’t. I’m just not confident the talent shows itself this season.
by John Morgan on Jun 26, 2009 1:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Spencer at left guard?
Hey John,
I want to ask you about something that’s come up now and then but has not, to my knowledge, been discussed in depth (and was not contemplated in your OG grading analysis). That has to do with Spencer’s potential conversion to the guard position. A lot of people seem to think Spencer’s gonna bounce right outta the league if he can’t handle the line’s play-recognition duties this season at the center position, but that seems like a tremendous waste of physical talent and ability. For this and/or next seaon, if you could choose between a scenario of either (a) Unger at C, Spencer at LG or (b) Spencer at C, Unger at LG, which way would you lean?
Thanks!
by dagraham on Jun 26, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinkg this as well.
Spencer is a good (not great) center and his line calls have been an issue at times. But all you ever hear is that Spencer is a monster in the weight room, and that he has all the talent in the world, so when is it going to show up. He had a full year behind Tobeck to learn the offense, but he never looked like he learned anything. Then he has had injuries (to much working out?) that have stunted his development. So the question is, is Spencer a “true” center or is he a “true” guard. I would say if he can’t show that he is center this year (and stay healthy), then maybe he needs a move to guard and give Unger a shot at center. Also if he can’t stay helathy this year, he may just need a change all together next year.
I really want Spencer to have a good year this year and stay with the Seahawks, but he has to show that he can stay healthy, and he has to make better line calls (he will be asked to do that way more this year with zone blocking), if not it is time to move on with Unger and Vallos and let Spencer walk or move over and challenge at LG.
by JustinWF on Jun 26, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think this is an interesting question
I have not heard that Spencer has practiced at G this offseason, but he did get practice reps there in the past, and it is an interesting question. First of course, Spencer’s back has to stay healthy before he can really show what he can do. But with all the athleticism Spencer has, I would think he could play at C or G, whichever he was needed to play. I’d be interested in hearing what John Morgan has to say on that.
The reason I think this is something to ponder is that Spencer’s back has been problematic. Suppose he has back problems again this year, but not bad enough to send him to IR? In that event, Unger could end up inheriting the C starting job. Spencer could end up healing, then competing for a role at G or C, wherever needed. I wouldnt even consider this except that some of the Seahawks beat writers don’t trust Spencer’s back to stay healthy, and it would be nice to have a healthy consistent C on our team for a change.
Hopefully, Spencer just stays healthy and takes over at C this year, but this seems an interesting situation to keep an eye on once training camp gets going.
by Stevo's on Jun 27, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's seems to me that John is the only blogger here who is giving accurate grades for his team
I’ll admit that I’m not that well versed in either the Rams or Niners o-lines, but both teams have had some of the worst offense lines in the NFL the past few years, and I just can’t understand how their bloggers keep giving those players such high marks. It’s like their grading based on a “if all things go 100% perfect for us this season, then this grade would make sense” logic, which isn’t logical at all.
A “B” grade, in my book, means you believe your guards (or any other position) would finish Top 10 in the NFL. That’s the ENTIRE league, not just the division. Yes, the Niners nearly made it to .500 last year, but both they and the Rams have been lousy for years. Hoping that a player/players doesn’t get hurt and meets his potential is not enough to rationalize these grades.
The Cardinals just played in the Super Bowl, so I’m more willing to cut those guys some slack; plus cgolden’s grades haven’t been TOO outlandish, I think.
by J.L. White on Jun 26, 2009 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he's a realist swimming with optimists
which makes his realism look a lot more pessimistic by comparison.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 26, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is true in general.
…but John is pretty damn pessimistic at times. Many a hardcore Hawks fan wears the mark.
by Camarostache '77 on Jun 26, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cards grades
I know we won’t agree on everything but I don’t think the Cards’ grades have been outlandish at all. If anything I’d say that the RB grade is a little low. All of those grades probably average out to a low B or something in that range for a top 3 offense from last season.
QB – A
RB – D
WR – A
TE – D
OC – C
OT – C
OG – B
by Bezekira on Jun 26, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a fair assessment
Also to consider we’ve been covering the portion of the roster that is the Cards’ strength, so far.
by jacobstevens on Jun 26, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And not the Drink...
That’s more of a High C (2.4 GPA)
I’d expect the Cards to have a higher “GPA” than that. Doing the same analysis of my expectation for other teams grades it WAY OFF!
by StonerHawk on Jun 26, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're looking for an overall grade, I'd say some of those have to be weighted differently.
For example, if you have a “D” rated TE out on the field, I’d say a big part of that if offset by having 3 of the “A” rated WR’s out there.
by Mind of no mind on Jun 26, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, even more important that as relatively unimportant as TE can be,
in a scheme that runs a lot of 3 WR sets, TEs are even more unimportant.
by LantermanC on Jun 29, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guards
I actually do think the 49ers guards could be top 10 this year. Obviously things could go to hell as they could anywhere. But for the 49ers, Rachal and Baas were both promoted into the starting lineup after Mike Nolan was fired. They’re going to have two young guys who showed some real solid ability the second half of the season.
by Fooch on Jun 26, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anything's possible.
But Rachal was an extremely raw prospect who should have stayed in school, according to scouts, and he’s already pegged as a starter. David Baas is decent, not dominant. Adam Snyder is one of the worst all-around linemen in the NFL. That foundation already seems shaky enough to draw a C grade.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 26, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rachal
The 49ers have been quite happy with Rachal in the limited time he started last year.
And you’re correct that he should have stayed in school. He left because of medical issues for his parents. Not an excuse for him, but just the reason he went pro. He’s got plenty of room to grow and I’m content seeing it in the starting lineup.
by Fooch on Jun 26, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looked good pulling on Gore's td run versus the skins
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
49ers grades
QB – B
RB – B
WR – B
TE – C
C – B
OG – B
OT – C
So the team that gave up the most sacks in the NFL last year has a B average offensive line? They must be a lot better than they play.
by Sheriff Bart on Jun 26, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Continuing onward
The 49ers grades give a GPA of 2.71
Really Fooch, Really?
I’ll pull my own weight and give Offensive GPA summary by looking up the Hawks and Rams
Overall that is
Rams 2.75 GPA
49ers 2.71 GPA
Hawks 2.57 GPA
Cardinals 2.42 GPA
So the ranking is Rams, 49ers, Hawks and Cardinals? The last time either team won the division was 6 years ago, but they are the BEST offensively?
The other point is that the Cards are so low. We were thinking that John was the only realist, but looks like the cgolden is more pessimistic than anyone. I mean, if we have a lower GPA, at least we were drafting 4th this year, but the Cards were in the SB?!
Hawks
QB- C
RB- C
WR- B
TE- A
OC- B
OT- B
OG- D
Rams
QB-C
RB- B
WR- C
TE- B
OC- A
OT- C+
OG- B
by StonerHawk on Jun 26, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Might be worthwhile to weight the GPA to reflect the relative importance and size of each unit.
Maybe the Cards’ GPA isn’t as low as it seems, since an “A” in the QB category is worth more than (to take an example from the Seahawks’ grades) an “A” for TEs. Conversely, the 49ers’ grade inflation is most flagrant at that most-important QB position, which probably colors how people are viewing the rest of the ‘9ers’ grades.
by dagraham on Jun 26, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
grades
dagraham is correct on two points: 1) I did inflate the QB grade and because of that everybody just views it as hometown cooking and 2) an A in the QB position is drastically different than an A for tight ends.
As far as the rest of the positions, I’m grading them separately and calculating the “GPA” as you have really has no bearing. An accurate GPA would involve weighting the grades differently.
by Fooch on Jun 26, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just the QB grade?
You gave a WR corpse made up of a rookie, an old man and a bunch of guys who’ve never done anything at the NFL level a B. You gave the Center position a B even though it’s just a solid started and no real depth whatsoever. You gave your offensive guards a B for no discernible reason whatsoever, considering the sample size you base this one is as small as to be meaningless. Heck, one of the worst offensive lines in the NFL is averaging out slightly below a B right now.
The QB grade was just the funniest because everyone knows the SF QB situation is one of the worst in the NFL. But if you think that was the only instance of hometown cooking going down, you need to go back and think your grading scale over again.
by Vasilii on Jun 27, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wide receivers
The 49ers wide receivers are going to surprise you.
by Fooch on Jun 27, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What, that's it?
This is an overall criticism of the way you grade, not a beat-by-beat discussion.
That said, I really like Josh Morgan m’self. And I think Battle and Brandon Jones are solid back-ups/situational players in their own right. But Crabtree is a rookie, and Bruce is ancient if still pretty awesome. You’ve got to seriously be drinking the cool-aid to give a corpse that lacks a WR1 and has a WR2 who’s turning 37 a B.
To me, a B would mean one receiver has a 1000-yard season and another one has a solid enough season (750+ yards). That’s not going to happen.
by Vasilii on Jun 27, 2009 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
corpse
Al Davis is on the 49ers?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 28, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And where would you put your WR corp??
You have 1 wideout and you just acquired him. Overall Our “corp” is better than yours, you pick the grade
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
<
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The formatting here confuses and angers me.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bruce had great numbers against your DB's and I don't think much changed in that area of your defense!
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, it sort of has.
Most of Bruce’s yards were against Josh Wilson starting his first game and Kelly Jennings being as craptacular as he ever was last season. Wilson has greatly improved and Ken Lucas should be a net gain.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't wait for Grant to "surprise" Crabtree.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jun 28, 2009 4:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just wonder if Crabtree is going to be wearing panties under his uniform.
Okay, that’s not something I care to picture, but reports of his ego have me wonder about him. Besides, he didn’t end up on any of my fantasy teams…heh.
I think he’ll be quite good, but to expect anything above average from the SF wide receiver corps this season is forecasting peak upside in the most optimistic way. I think highly of Crabtree and Morgan. But also think there are many of us that don’t write for Niners Nation that have more realistic expectations of them, and their depth at the position. Most of those grades seem to be based on ‘if best case scenarios happens’ speculation – not what’s probable or even likely.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jun 28, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"corps" (as in Marine)
not “corpse” (as in Isaac Bruce, the man who tore up our secondary while using his walker)
by ninjasocks on Jun 27, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same difference
I mean the WR corps of the Niners is an accident waiting to happen.
Hah, I kid, good eye if not the only typo I made. ESL speaker here, and I do sometimes tend to typo things up if I’m in a hurry.
by Vasilii on Jun 28, 2009 3:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't you go get mike martz, you would quickly join the ranks of most sacked
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
by rlott#42 on Jun 29, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John's realistic outlook is what gives him credibility.
I’ve never seen anyone consider Ritchie Incognito anything other than a liability. The Rams did well in adding Jason Brown, who I hoped the Hawks would pursue. The Niners’ line is atrocious. This entire roundtable has been a lesson in homerism from the Niners’ writer, so his/her high grades are not surprising.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jun 27, 2009 5:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a little late in the game
But it might be nice to include a preface in every NFC West Roundtable laying out the basis for the grades (weighting of starters vs depth, the role of past performance vs future potential, likelihood that a homer will hand out a “B” grade every damn time for every catergory).
Also, I’m a little more optimistic (Wahle seemed ok when he wasn’t injured or holding and we should have decent depth).
by ninjasocks on Jun 26, 2009 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Should Fooch give another aspect of the 49ers a B?
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Jun 26, 2009 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
couldn't agree more about the Rams
Any unit with Incognito should never scratch a B, that guy is crap. What have any of the others done in the last 2 years that would give any Rams fan reason to be optimistic?
by Hancock.Brett on Jun 26, 2009 2:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jacob Bell was a notable starter for the Titans.
Not a fan of Incognito but apparently he’s kind of like the Owen Schmitt of guards. That, and one of the best young centers in the league in Jason Brown should help both out of them out somewhat.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 26, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Richie has matured as a player since 2006
Because his continuous false starts in the game at Qwest Field that season (almost) single-handedly cost the Rams a winnable game against us. I hope, for the sake of the Rams’ grade at guard, he has improved since then.
by J.L. White on Jun 26, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I prefer him healthy and terrible.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jun 27, 2009 5:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OL rotation?
Usually you want the starting OL to gel as a unit but I’m wondering if it might be better for us to rotate depending to the situation and matchup. I don’t know what Knapp’s preference is on this but it could help emphasize the strengths in the depth at the position. This is a tough one to call because there’s so many questions. It’ll probably take some “tinkering” but I think it could be really pretty solid by the end of the season.
by Hawkhammer19 on Jun 26, 2009 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No issue.
D is a fine grade with the guard spot (before training camp). You can only grade on last years performance and potential for this year nothing more.
I really think Sims will be fine at RG if he can stay healthy (if). On the left side I would love to see Unger beat out Wahle, but if Mike Wahle is 100% and wins the job outright, then no issue here. He has been to a Pro-bowl in 2005, so we know he can play, his big issue is health, not talent. Also being 32 is not old for an O-linemen, but being injury prone is a problem, so lets see Mike play injury free for a year (not sure he can do it).
As for the depth on the O-line, it’s not great. Porkchop may not have been great, but when healthy he was a very good OG and an ok OT, but he is gone. So that leaves Wrotto, Unger (or Wahle), Willis and Steve Vallos, Hum? I would like to have seen Chop (or another vet) back for one more year, but what are you going to do. All in all I see this group grading out at D+ or maybe C-, RIGHT NOW! I really like what Unger brings and with him and Wahle on the left side I feel good. As for Sims, Willis and Wrotto on the right side, I feel fine as well. If Sims is 100% he will do just fine in zone blocking, Willis needs to stay at Tackle, but if he is needed for a short time at guard, fine. I’m interested in Wrotto, the guy has good feet, and is a monster run blocker, will he break out and beat out Sims, my guess is no, but he might be the answer at LG next year if Wahle is gone and Unger moves over to Center.
One last thing, Steve Vallos needs to stay at center. He can play for short times at guard (like Willis), but in the end the guy is a good backup Center and the Hawks would be wise pay him like a backup and keep him around for the next 3-5 years. Unless Spencer is lights out this year he will be gone next year and keeping Unger and Vallos past their rookie contracts over the next few years would be wise.
by JustinWF on Jun 26, 2009 3:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In my view, a lack of continuity is going to hurt our line.
And the fact that we have like 10 people competing for a starting spot.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 26, 2009 3:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Anybody's Guess
Nothing to quibble with here, since No One Knows whether Sims will be ready, if Spencer will be healthy enough to let Unger play at G, or if Walt will be healthy enough to let Locklear stay at RT so that Willis can try out at G.
but… I really think the most optimistic combination for Seattle would be WILLIS at right and Unger at left guard. (with Sims watching from the bench in awe of how Real football players play the game.)
The line I’m hoping for is: Walter-Unger-Spencer-Willis-Lock.
by Stevo's on Jun 26, 2009 9:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I dislike statements like this:
with Sims watching from the bench in awe of how Real football players play the game
I’m pretty critical sometimes, but let’s not pretend anyone on the Seahawks roster isn’t a phenomenal football player. To say Sims is not a “Real” football player is pretty weak.
by John Morgan on Jun 26, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That, and the fact Sims isn't really that bad.
I’d put him on the line before Wahle, that’s for damn sure.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jun 27, 2009 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sims pass pro is so much better than Wahle's that it is not even humorous.
When Hasselbeck had his best season statistically, it was on Rob Sims’ and Chris Spencer’s backs.
by Built2Spill on Jun 27, 2009 6:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny how that happened.
Defending Sims was a tough row to hoe in 2007, but I think fans saw the importance of good pass blocking from every offensive lineman in 2008. Wherever you’re weak, a good defense will exploit it.
by John Morgan on Jun 27, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but when Julius Jones, Maurice Morris, and T.J. Duckett combined to resemble a mildly effective rushing attack,
this is the man you saw involved far more often than Sims ever was:
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 27, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chop?
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jun 28, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's Mike Wahle nearly decleating Patrick Willis.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 28, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It looks like PWill can fly
Both feet off the ground.
by ninjasocks on Jun 28, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you gave them a 'D', not me.
you give the guards a D, and then say Sims is a ‘phenomenal football player’. Ok. I think Sims is a very strong young man, a good college football player, but hasn’t proven anything yet at the NFL level. And if he isn’t one of our best two guards, then he should be riding the bench, and that’s all my comment was meant to say.
by Stevo's on Jun 27, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fooch is callin' in the troops
Watch Fooch get taken behind the woodshed once again
The folks at Field Gulls (our Seahawks blog) have taken exception to my rankings from day 1. Apparently I have no credibility. Good times. If you like seeing your fearless leader get slapped around a little, head on over…but do play nice.
This is posted up at the top of the page at Niners Nation. Does this sound like something you’d do when the facts are on your side?
by ninjasocks on Jun 27, 2009 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not so much Fooch...
as it is the fact that it seems like an unusually large amount of NN readers actually believe he’s being too harsh at times, which is mind-boggling.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 27, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not opposed to the homers
Heck, last year I got on the Kent-Taylor-Payne-Bumpus-Forsett hype-wagon, myself. I also don’t mind calling folks out on it.
That said, rounding up your virtual homies to go back you up in some Outsiders-esque comment section rumble, on a completely different blog, is kinda lame.
by ninjasocks on Jun 27, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outsiders-esque is good.
I was thinking ESPN message boards-esque.
I’ve had people stalk me for months on there for making a case.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jun 28, 2009 4:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not the strongest rallying of the troops
But overall, I think it shows a good effort, so I can reasonably analyse this small sample material to extrapolate that his next attempt at cross-blog trolling will be much stronger. I give him a C+, which I’ll round up to an A- because that makes sense.
by Vasilii on Jun 27, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'll start calling myself "fearless leader"
by John Morgan on Jun 27, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As shall I.
You may refer to us as your peons.
by thebyron on Jun 27, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as you don't expect us to
By the way, while some of this controversy comes from the weird logic employed at times, the biggest issue seems to be the grades. Personally, I always hate it when that happens: you see a solid review of a CD or film or game, or equally of an NFL player or position, and then there’s a grade and everyone just harps on that. Because everyone will always disagree with grades…
Still, assuming the grades are necessary (and they probably are since this is a comparative piece), LantermanC’s question/suggestions from way back in the original piece isn’t a bad idea damage control-wise: if individual bloggers can’t grade reasonably, it might not be a bad idea for all four bloggers to grade and to then take the average.
by Vasilii on Jun 27, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The biggest problem is that
no one really knows what the grading criteria are and how the grading scales are arranged. If everyone graded on the same scale (like a homer or as conservatively as possible), then I think we wouldn’t have so much controversy.
by ninjasocks on Jun 27, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's A, B, C, D, F
I fail to see how that’s complex.
by John Morgan on Jun 27, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
scale
I’m guessing that he is simply stating that each site has a different take on what qualifies for each grade. Of course, I also don’t think it’s something that could be clarified all that well.
by Fooch on Jun 28, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a very weak argument.
I think very few people would argue that “B” constitutes anything but “above average”, and I would love to hear how many of your “B” grades are in the upper fifteen of the NFL. You could start with quarterback.
by John Morgan on Jun 28, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
QB
I’ve already admitted I inflated the QB grade (up above). As far as the other Bs I do think the 49ers wide receivers will be in the upper 15 of the NFL.
by Fooch on Jun 28, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
No team in recent memory has gotten that kind of return from a rookie wide receiver.
You are essentially saying that the development of Morgan and the inclusion of Crabtree will turn one of the worst passing offenses in football into an above average passing offense. That might sell among fans, but it strains credibility.
Dwayne Bowe and Calvin Johnson didn’t do that for their respective teams. With all due respect, it seems very much that you are selling false hope to a desperate fanbase.
by John Morgan on Jun 28, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yip
I think people tend to overhype on rookie WRs, but the last one to put up WR1 numbers as a rookie might’ve been Randy Moss.
Of this season’s top-10 yardage WRs, only Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson had more than 750 yards their first season. And those’re easily three of the most talented young wide receivers out there, a list Crabtree is hardly guaranteed to join.
As said, I’d figure a B-grade is, what, a 1000-yard WR and another one with 750 or close? I don’t see a single receiver on the Niners roster that I would bet coming close to a 1000.
by Vasilii on Jun 28, 2009 3:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anquan Boldin had like 1,300 yards his rookie season or something.
But that’s besides the point, it’s still extremely unlikely Crabtree does half that well.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 28, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fitz was no slouch his rookie season either
by Bezekira on Jun 29, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A slouch? No
58 receptions for 780 yards and 8 TDs. Solid rookie numbers, but not WR1-production. As John said, rookies rarely, rarely give that. FF remembered Boldin (good one, Frog), and everyone knows Moss and Rice put up WR1 numbers. But really, it’s a major exception for a rookie WR to come even close to a 1000 yards, and if it happens it’s usually on a competent offense
by Vasilii on Jun 29, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And further...
I would like to know how admitting you inflated the quarterback’s grade is supposed to support that your other grades were realistic.
by John Morgan on Jun 28, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
More importanty
The scale’s off. Fooch gave their Pro Bowl running back a B because of lack of depth, which makes sense…but then a decent C with no depth also gets a B, essentially attributing to Eric Heitmann the same level in his position as Frank Gore has as running back. Now Heitmann may be a solid center, but he’s not pro bowl level, is he?
There’s a reason people have been mocking the automatism of B, Fooch. It doesn’t make much sense to equate one of the worst QB situations in the NFL with one of the better running backs, nor to equate those two with a promising but really too young WR corps.
by Vasilii on Jun 28, 2009 3:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zap.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jun 28, 2009 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
realistic grades
I think they are, you don’t think they are. That’s life.
by Fooch on Jun 28, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fooch, your grades are based on "Best Case Scenario," not evidence at hand.
You HOPE that Michael Crabtree has the best rookie WR season since Anquan Boldin or Randy Moss. You HOPE that Josh Morgan will make the leap that you seem so sure he’ll make. You HOPE that Isaac Bruce doesn’t regress like most other receivers would at his age.
Any of those scenarios COULD happen, but might not. How many rookie WRs really shine in their first season? I really like Crabtree btw, but then again I also really liked Charlie Rogers, too. How many receivers could be counted on, after playing for 15+ seasons? How many receivers, like Morgan, appeared ready to bust out, only to fizzle?
Your team has, at best, a C- outlook at receivers, based on what your players have done so far (and what we expect rookie receivers to do), but your optimism has tainted your grades. I am far more optimistic about our guards than John is, but I also realize there are plenty of risks and faults with each of our guys, and I also agree with his grade.
by J.L. White on Jun 28, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you raise an interesting point while trying to ignore the question
I could definitely see how “B” means above average, but what does "above average mean?
How do you rank relative grades like “above average”? Is that the top 50% of the league, top third, top 20%, etc? Some folks (at NN) think that the “A”-grade means “top 10”. Where do you make the cutoffs? Where does Fooch?
If the league-wide strength of position X goes down from one year and the Hawks strength of position X stays the same, does their grade up? Or are you grading against some “historical” or “absolute” grading scale? You need to weight performance against the same scale to get any understanding of merit (this is why we use stats like DVOA and strength of schedule instead of just YPC, win-loss, etc).
No one knows what’s going on here and that makes it impossible to compare the grades each blogger is handing out.
by ninjasocks on Jun 28, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess the complexity comes in with what the grading scale IS:
for example, is it a perfect bell curve? ie: A is ranked 1-4 in the NFL, B is 5-11, C is 12-21, D 22-28 and F 29-32?
or is it more like todays college grades, where As are challenging but not impossible to get, you get a B if you show up every day and don’t fuck anything up. C’s mean not doing your homework and only doing ok on the final, and a C- is basically a failing grade?
also, how do you weight potential and depth? i could see our fearless leader mathematically weighting it "i think there’s a 25% chance of Walter Jones getting injured so will reduce our tackle grade by 12.5% (losing half of our starters) or whatever.
shrugs
i love this series, but ignore the grades and just read the analysis.
by cro-mag! on Jun 28, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When's the next roundtable, oh Fearless Leader?
I’m putting the Niners down for at least a ‘B’ right now.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jun 28, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now you ruined it
He’s going to want to assign a “B” grade, but he knows that everyone expects that now, so he’ll assign a different grade. In his heart, though, it’ll be a “B”.
by ninjasocks on Jun 28, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
post
It wasn’t a “rallying of the troops.” It was for entertainment value. This had nothing to do with trolling.
by Fooch on Jun 27, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you're a troll
And I appreciate the fact that you’re over here defending yourself.
The post does, however, scream “hey guys, come help me out here” to me. It’s on the front page, not in the comments section of the NN version of the roundtable, where I might expect it to be if it was just an off-hand remark.
by ninjasocks on Jun 27, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Fooch deserves some props...
for continually coming over here to explain his reasoning.
I appreciate how he rarely, if ever, gets defensive even with all of us ripping into his analysis.
While I don’t agree with a few of his grades, I don’t think he’s as far off as some of rest of the wolves. :)
by PerryCollective on Jun 28, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Ctrl+F: Hutch"
0 results found.
Bravo. Bravo.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 30, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
