There are 53 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Ryan Clady or Joe Staley

Originally posted by fanmusclecars:
Originally posted by 9erred:


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.

Another great move by Mike Nolan. Nolan seemed to be in love with Cody Wallace after the senior bowl.

Actually...Anthony Collins has been benched in favor of a 6-9 OT from Georgia who was cut five times, a guy by the name of Dennis Roland. So you swap one bench warmer Wallace for another in Collins.
Originally posted by LBSI9ers:
Originally posted by Overkill:
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.

Yea your point is short sighted. I purposely left out Flacco as my comparison given that good QBs are more valuable than great LT. You also left out Mayo. The comparison is legit. Alberts was a gaurd at Virginia. Most people felt he couldn't translate to LT in the pros, some felt he could. Staley was a LT and he's a left tackle now. Same for Clady.

He was my original post:
In retrospect, the 2007 trade for Staley did have an impact on our draft in 2008. Statement of fact.

We would have had a shot at Ryan Clady. Statement of fact.

In retrospect obviously, we may have given up a HOF left tackle for a very good tackle. Statement of fact.

Would people still make this trade on draft day? The question.

The question asks did you learn something from this action based on the undeniable facts. That's all. Not, do we need to consult the oracle at Delphi?

You should try working on your reading comprehension. You missed my point entirely and have yet to even address my question.

So yes, perhaps you should consult the oracle at Delphi. Maybe she could grasp what you so obviously do not.

[ Edited by Overkill on Nov 4, 2009 at 08:04:08 ]
  • Nuns
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 797
Everyone always forgets about the pricetag. GM's struggle to trade out of the top 10 because nobody wants to pay those prices on a potential bust.

Staley's initial contract was a 6 year, 10 million dollar deal. Sedrick Ellis, picked with our selection signed a 5 year, 49 million dollar deal with 20 guaranteed. That is a lot dough to risk.

I'll take Staley at that price over Ellis at his price in retrospect. Of course, Staley is now making big money, but the risk is lower given that he has played in the NFL
  • KRS-1
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 27,083
Originally posted by DarthNiner:
The arguement in this thread is weak.

You're banking on the Niners front office to KNOW who will be available at the pick that the team will be making on NEXT YEAR's draft. Unless you have Nostradamus in your Draft War Room you'll never know Clady will be available. Besides, Staley is better than Clady anyway.

Or where you will be picking either. Evidence, the 2009 Denver Broncos.

At the end of the day Staley graded out high enough to warrant the 49ers making the move to draft him. When you have a player graded out like that and believe he can be a franchise LT, if you can swing a deal then do it.

It's about getting better now not giving the players, coaches and fans of the 49ers another year of losing and hoping to get better next year.
  • KRS-1
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 27,083
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Overkill:
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.

Replace Staley with Kwame and we'd probally be picking alot higher that season. Who knows we might of been able to draft Matt Ryan. That's why I think we made the wrong move. We just weren't a good enough team to make that kind of risk. Thankfully the pick panned out so in the end no harm no foul.

In all likelihood, we would not have sniffed Ryan. Smith was still under his rookie contract. Had we gone another year with Kwame and his multiple whiffs at the LOS we may have gotten a QB or even Gore killed back there. An upgrade was needed.

Again, at the time the 49ers FO was not looking at the following year's draft class and rightfully so. You have no clue what can happen over that year. If you hold onto the pick banking on any 1 player at whatever position you could come away disappointed. The player you hold out for could get hurt or his draft stock could take a huge hit due to his play the following year or during the offseason.
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.

I just can't go for this argument. Unless you have God on your shoulder, you do the best with what you have at the time. Whether the decision is to draft or trade.

Then several years later people second guess you.
I have thought about the pros and cons of trading the "Clady first round pick" for Staley. It hasnt been until this year that I have decided that it was a good trade for the 49ers. First and most importantly, Staley is at the very least a solid and legitimate NFL left tackle. If Harris Barton reincarnated as a LT he would be Joe Staley. Second, the 49ers saved the large cap hits when you're comparing a #7 overall rookie contract to a late #20s rookie contract. Third, the 49ers were able to lock up Staley long-term with an excellent deal for both sides. I believe when Clady's rookie contract is up, he will demand a HUGE deal. Just think about having to deal with trying to extend huge deal's with Willis then Clady back to back years. a nightmare.
Originally posted by LBSI9ers:
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?

Hindsight is always 20/20.. I like Staley, he is much better than Ugoh who all the naysayers and second guessers say we should have taken instead of trading for Staley.

49er brass never thought we would suck so bad in 2007 and the pick we traded for Staley would be a #7 oe whatever it was. Is Staley as good as Clady, no, not at this point and maybe he never will be.

I do not fault Scott for making the trade... he was making a move that he thought was the right move to improve the team.
Originally posted by DaveWilcox:
Originally posted by LBSI9ers:
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?

Hindsight is always 20/20.. I like Staley, he is much better than Ugoh who all the naysayers and second guessers say we should have taken instead of trading for Staley.

49er brass never thought we would suck so bad in 2007 and the pick we traded for Staley would be a #7 oe whatever it was. Is Staley as good as Clady, no, not at this point and maybe he never will be.

I do not fault Scott for making the trade... he was making a move that he thought was the right move to improve the team.

Which it was
No need to debate the coulda woulda shoulda's. Just simply put Clady is the better player and it's not an argument.
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.

But how do you know if ANY of these guys would've been any good? they both were talented players...so who knew!? Hard to apply that type of thinking when all you have to base it on is there college play, bc it could have easily been the other way around.

Its easy to say that now, after the fact! (Staley hurt, Clady dominating)

Plus Staley is improving everyday IMO. Yes, Clady was more natural and adapted to the NFL game quicker, but I'm happy with Staley. Sucks he got hurt.

[ Edited by 9erluv415 on Nov 5, 2009 at 13:38:01 ]
  • KRS-1
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 27,083
FWIW according to the Stats website Clady has given up 2 sacks and been penalized once this year while Staley also has surrendered 2 sacks and has not been penalized.

[ Edited by KRS-1 on Nov 5, 2009 at 13:46:36 ]
Originally posted by KRS-1:
FWIW according to the Stats website Clady has given up 2 sacks and been penalized once this year while Staley also has surrendered 2 sacks and has not been penalized.

Run blocking is the major difference in there games. Clady is a mauler who pushes defenders around. Staley is barely average and gets no push in run blocking. Staley's a beast @ pass protection.

[ Edited by lamontb on Nov 11, 2009 at 07:11:16 ]
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.

Yet that is exactly what they did this year, when we had a dire need for pass rushers and O-linemen...yet traded away a high 2nd round pick to get a 1st "next year".