Ryan Clady or Joe Staley

In retrospect, the 2007 trade for Staley did have an impact on our draft in 2008. We would have had a shot at Ryan Clady. In retrospect obviously, we may have given up a HOF left tackle for a very good tackle. Any thoughts? Would people still make this trade on draft day?

The niners also could have had Sedric Ellis with that pick, a much better DL than Balmer.


In the fourth round of 2008, the niners chose Cody Wallace, with Anthony Collins, a projected first round OT on the board. The Bungles chose Collins, and he is their starter at RT, while Wallace is so far an inactive every game.

The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

We needed to add a young OT in 2007 in the worst way . . . no . . . nevermind . . . let's wait on the kid from Boise. Can't look at it like that. You can do that with most any pick.

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

So what are you saying? The Niners FO should never trade up to get a guy they like because they should know that next year they'll have a chance to get a guy that could be even better?

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

We needed to add a young OT in 2007 in the worst way . . . no . . . nevermind . . . let's wait on the kid from Boise. Can't look at it like that. You can do that with most any pick.

Wait what ? Logic on the WZ ? I like it!

There was no telling who or what would be available to us the following year. Getting Staley WAS the right move, no if's and's or but's about it. The naysayers can say what they will but it does not make it right or logical.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

So what are you saying? The Niners FO should never trade up to get a guy they like because they should know that next year they'll have a chance to get a guy that could be even better?

In short yes. That is what I am saying. Why would we trade a valuable pick that we have no idea the value of yet to take a gamble on a guy? There is a consequence there right? Clearly our FO was not able to estimate the roster's ability, but the Patriots could. What I am saying is that trading away valuable picks have consequences. Here is the price: Clady. We gave up a lot for Staley. For a long time people have felt that we may not have lost on the trade. But clearly we have.

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

So what are you saying? The Niners FO should never trade up to get a guy they like because they should know that next year they'll have a chance to get a guy that could be even better?

In short yes. That is what I am saying. Why would we trade a valuable pick that we have no idea the value of yet to take a gamble on a guy? There is a consequence there right? Clearly our FO was not able to estimate the roster's ability, but the Patriots could. What I am saying is that trading away valuable picks have consequences. Here is the price: Clady. We gave up a lot for Staley. For a long time people have felt that we may not have lost on the trade. But clearly we have.

Thank god you're not a GM.

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

So what are you saying? The Niners FO should never trade up to get a guy they like because they should know that next year they'll have a chance to get a guy that could be even better?

In short yes. That is what I am saying. Why would we trade a valuable pick that we have no idea the value of yet to take a gamble on a guy? There is a consequence there right? Clearly our FO was not able to estimate the roster's ability, but the Patriots could. What I am saying is that trading away valuable picks have consequences. Here is the price: Clady. We gave up a lot for Staley. For a long time people have felt that we may not have lost on the trade. But clearly we have.

Thank god you're not a GM.

Hmm I wonder what Carolina is thinking right now? Are they thinking the same way you are? I bet not.

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

We needed to add a young OT in 2007 in the worst way . . . no . . . nevermind . . . let's wait on the kid from Boise. Can't look at it like that. You can do that with most any pick.

Wait what ? Logic on the WZ ? I like it!

There was no telling who or what would be available to us the following year. Getting Staley WAS the right move, no if's and's or but's about it. The naysayers can say what they will but it does not make it right or logical.

Not to mention there is no guarantee we would have even taken Clady. We could very well have selected Ellis, Harvey, Chris Williams or any number of other players on the board at that point.

If we're gonna play the "coulda had this guy" game, than we should never trade any pick above the sixth round because of Tom Brady. Any pick in round 1 thru 6 could be a HOF'er, apparently.

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

So what are you saying? The Niners FO should never trade up to get a guy they like because they should know that next year they'll have a chance to get a guy that could be even better?

In short yes. That is what I am saying. Why would we trade a valuable pick that we have no idea the value of yet to take a gamble on a guy? There is a consequence there right? Clearly our FO was not able to estimate the roster's ability, but the Patriots could. What I am saying is that trading away valuable picks have consequences. Here is the price: Clady. We gave up a lot for Staley. For a long time people have felt that we may not have lost on the trade. But clearly we have.

Thank god you're not a GM.

Hmm I wonder what Carolina is thinking right now? Are they thinking the same way you are? I bet not.

They're thinking they got their guy and the consequences of that they have to deal with at a later time. As opposed to some armchair GMs like you, who apparently have a crystal ball. By the way, can I have the lottery numbers for the Powerball drawing on wednesday night???

It is clear people are focusing on the fact that compared Clady to Staley. What I was trying to question is should teams trade first round choices in the next year. Given that the team isn't sure of the value. Staley is a good player, but did it justify his price?

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
The key words are "in retrospect." When you have a chance to get a guy that you think can be an excellent LT (as we thought we could in Staley), you do it. Hindsight means absolutely nothing.

Which was clearly stated in the post. The point is to better understand the past to apply the lessons to this draft. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana.

So what are you saying? The Niners FO should never trade up to get a guy they like because they should know that next year they'll have a chance to get a guy that could be even better?

In short yes. That is what I am saying. Why would we trade a valuable pick that we have no idea the value of yet to take a gamble on a guy? There is a consequence there right? Clearly our FO was not able to estimate the roster's ability, but the Patriots could. What I am saying is that trading away valuable picks have consequences. Here is the price: Clady. We gave up a lot for Staley. For a long time people have felt that we may not have lost on the trade. But clearly we have.

Thank god you're not a GM.

Hmm I wonder what Carolina is thinking right now? Are they thinking the same way you are? I bet not.

They're thinking they got their guy and the consequences of that they have to deal with at a later time. As opposed to some armchair GMs like you, who apparently have a crystal ball. By the way, can I have the lottery numbers for the Powerball drawing on wednesday night???

You realize your angry on a message board right?

Originally posted by LBSI9ers:
It is clear people are focusing on the fact that compared Clady to Staley. What I was trying to question is should teams trade first round choices in the next year. Given that the team isn't sure of the value. Staley is a good player, but did it justify his price?

That's because you equated the value of that draft selection with Clady. We would have had the #7 selection that year, Clady went 12th.

If we had taken DT Sedrick Ellis, OT Brandon Albert (who was expected to go ahead of Clady that year) or OT Chris Williams (who was rated equally to Clady prior to the draft) with that pick, does that change your estimation of Staley's "price"? All of those guys were on the board at #7 and Staley is better than any of them imo.