Clowney NFC Defensive Player of the Week

[Donn Beach]

I don't understand what you are getting at, they have been getting solid Oline play all season, they get their starting bookends tackles back and that suddenly makes their Oline a piece of crap? If they didn't expect to get as good or better production out of them why would they have used them? They were not just tossed out there, they have been practicing since they were deemed healthy to play. Your notion seems to be there should be some sort of asterisk on Clowney's being defensive player of the week, that the 9ers line was particularly bad, but i am really not seeing it

I was asking a question, not making an assertion. But, to address your statements the issue is with players that miss time getting back into football shape. From what i have heard from former players like Wyman and Millen that are in the media it takes playing actual football to get back the coordination and conditioning they need to play at their peak level, and that takes time. So, you make a decision in bringing back a veteran who may be the best player at a position but knowing it will take some time to get to full effectiveness. That would be my guess. They didn't think Staley would improve his readiness any more just working with trainers and taking part in practices. That doesn't mean he was the better option to start a LT that day.

I have never heard of a situation where a team was considered to be worse because they got a starter back from an injury...

[Michael K.]

sure, why not, the 49er offensive line is considered a good one

ranked 9th
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol/2019

That's great. They have a good back-up LT but he didn't play on Monday, did he? No, they used a guy coming off a broken leg who hadn't played in 7 weeks. That's why i asked the question.

I don't see why that is less reasonable than the notion that having Diggs at safety totally changed how they were able to utilize the d-linemen.

So, Diggs missing games for injury is different though? One comes back from injury and is the difference in the defense, the other comes back and is a hinderance for the offense? Convenient.

[Sibelius Hindemith]

sure, why not, the 49er offensive line is considered a good one

ranked 9th
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol/2019

That's great. They have a good back-up LT but he didn't play on Monday, did he? No, they used a guy coming off a broken leg who hadn't played in 7 weeks. That's why i asked the question.

I don't see why that is less reasonable than the notion that having Diggs at safety totally changed how they were able to utilize the d-linemen.

So, Diggs missing games for injury is different though? One comes back from injury and is the difference in the defense, the other comes back and is a hinderance for the offense? Convenient.

Well, you should take that up with the people that were suggesting Diggs was the difference. In case you couldn't understand what i wrote, i wasn't advocating that notion.

[Donn Beach]

The only thing that you have to wonder is how much did the 49ers o-line situation have to do with Clowney's success?

that is what you said, I interpreted that as it being a given there was a situation with their line. That is the notion I am at a loss about. Every team in the NFL deals with injuries, starters coming and going. I think everybody in the league would agree the 49ers have had good Oline production this season, and there was no reason not to believe it would be that way against the Hawks. Show me anybody anticipating that their Oline production would fall off because they were going to get their starters back, sorry that makes no sense to me.

San Francisco will return starting tackles Joe Staley and Mike McGlinchey as well as Pro Bowl fullback Kyle Juszczyk on offense Monday night. That’s legitimately three of the team’s best offensive players.

These are three big additions as the 49ers begin the difficult second half of their schedule. The return of those three offensive players should help big time against a Seahawks defense that has racked up just 15 sacks in nine games. If Garoppolo has the time, he could duplicate last week’s flawless four-touchdown performance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfra ... 31ec2758a3

[Sibelius Hindemith]

The only thing that you have to wonder is how much did the 49ers o-line situation have to do with Clowney's success?

that is what you said, I interpreted that as it being given there was a situation with their line. That is the notion I am at a loss about.

Then let ne clear it up. The "situation", as i stated in my ensuing post, was that two of their starting linemen were returning from 4 and 6 week layoffs and another starter got injured and had to be replaced during the game. So i was asking if people thought that might be a reason for Clowney's big game.

Every team in the NFL deals with injuries, starters coming and going. I think everybody in the league would agree the 49ers have had good Oline production this season, and there was no reason not to believe it would be that way against the Hawks. Show me anybody anticipating that their Oline production would fall off because they were going to get their starters back, sorry that makes no sense to me.

That's not true. I layed out the reasons why there may have been problems with their o-line play. And i didn't just pull that out of thin air. It was commented on during the radio broadcast by either Raible or the color guy, both former players. You don't agree, fine. You may well be correct.

[ThePro]

If it was faulty Oline play why didn't Ansah get off as well? He was as useless as ever even with Clowney going crazy. Poor Staley and McGlinchey managed to block him somehow.

[Michael K.]

Then let ne clear it up. The "situation", as i stated in my ensuing post, was that two of their starting linemen were returning from 4 and 6 week layoffs and another starter got injured and had to be replaced during the game. So i was asking if people thought that might be a reason for Clowney's big game.

To me, if the guys that played while these two were injured were going to out perform them, and the 49ers played the Staley and McGlinchey anyway? Then that is on the 49ers. If that isn't the case, if these guys were better than the backups that were playing prior? Then Clowney might have had an even bigger game if they didn't play. It is a very odd stance. If the backups played the 49ers can excuse getting whooped by our defense because they played backups, but if the starters play and we whoop them anyway it can be claimed that the starts weren't ready? How convenient.

[Michael K.]

I think when you break it down this way it looks silly.

The Niners lost their starting Center and TE. Poor 49ers.

The Niners gained their two starting OTs. Poor 49ers.

Huh?

[ThePro]

I think when you break it down this way it looks silly.

The Niners lost their starting Center and TE. Poor 49ers.

The Niners gained their two starting OTs. Poor 49ers.

Huh?

It makes perfect sense when you say it this way..

The Texans F'd up by franchising Clowney as a OLB. They should have signed him prior anyways.

He's a Seahawk now...Poor NFC

[Sibelius Hindemith]

I think when you break it down this way it looks silly.

The Niners lost their starting Center and TE. Poor 49ers.

The Niners gained their two starting OTs. Poor 49ers.

Huh?

I don't think anyone was breaking it down that way. I was asking how much of an impact people think it had on Clowney's game. I would like to believe that he'll be able to keep up that level of play but i'm doubtful of that. It seems that you and others here believe he can just go out there and do that whenever he wants to because it was all about effort and will-power or some defensive scheme that couldn't be implemented until Diggs was on the roster. I think there may have been more to it than that.