Interesting trade-up possibility

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


No.

We are sitting pretty right now. Stay where we are.

Yes -- we should reach for a tackle or hope to get a decent one in the 2nd or 3rd. Good plan...

Originally posted by KRS-1:
Also please explain how the draft calculator is more reliable than the value chart ? How do you know NFL teams rely on it ?

Mike Sando references the chart here when discusssing the Seahawks trade for Whitehurst in his blog. I have yet to see anything that says this armchair GM David Dodd's calculator has any relevance whatsoever as compared to constant references by national media and football analysts to the value chart. Albeit the value chart is now older and possibly has been modified by some teams it still is what seems most relevant.

Based on recent draft-day trades -- test a few recent draft-day trades. Look, the chart is antiquated at the top. The #1 is worth TWICE as much as the #7, and THREE TIMES as much as the #16? Get real.

The second round is jacked as well. The calculator has much move value on 2nd rounders than the chart...but look at the number of teams willing to trade away future #1s for a second rounder.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


No.

We are sitting pretty right now. Stay where we are.

Yes -- we should reach for a tackle or hope to get a decent one in the 2nd or 3rd. Good plan...

Using a players position to determine where they should be drafted keeps team from becoming great. If A certain player is going to instantly make your team better then it is worth it no matter the position.Please explain why we would be reaching for a tackle if we stay where we are?

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Using the draft value calculator, it is an even trade if we send #13 and #17 for picks 3 - 6 and that team's 2nd rounder. If we traded up for Okung at #5, for example, we'd send the 13 and 17 to them and get the #36 back. We would then have Friday picks at 36, 49, and 79.

I really think Okung is the only player worth trading into the Top 5 for. Zoners who want to trade up for a safety (Berry) have a little too much space between the ears. Who the hell trades up for a safety???

When that safety can also play corner and is an elite DB who played at a high level like Berry did, it's understandable why people would want to trade up for him.

Same reason why teams do take safety's in the top 10, worked out pretty well when the 49ers took Ronnie Lott and when the Steelers did the same with Rod Woodson, who were both DB's who like Berry could play CB or S.

While I am not comparing Berry to either, I am simply pointing out that when the consensus across the nation is that a player is one of the 5 best in his entire draft class, it comes with no surprise that fans want to trade up for said prospect.

Lott and Woodson were both drafted AS CBs. Has Berry ever played CB???

Originally posted by SF4EVA:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


No.

We are sitting pretty right now. Stay where we are.

Yes -- we should reach for a tackle or hope to get a decent one in the 2nd or 3rd. Good plan...

Using a players position to determine where they should be drafted keeps team from becoming great. If A certain player is going to instantly make your team better then it is worth it no matter the position.Please explain why we would be reaching for a tackle if we stay where we are?

Because there is a big drop-off in Tackle talent after Okung, and yet another drop-off after Bulaga and Williams.

There are three things that can cause a tackle to flop:

- A lack of determination
- Short Arms
- Poor footwork

Okung is strong in all three of those, while the others are all weak. Bulaga has short arms, Williams, has poor footwork, and Davis has a motivation problem. Campbell just isn't a good football player. Brown could end up being a steal, but I don't think he's big enough.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by SF4EVA:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


No.

We are sitting pretty right now. Stay where we are.

Yes -- we should reach for a tackle or hope to get a decent one in the 2nd or 3rd. Good plan...

Using a players position to determine where they should be drafted keeps team from becoming great. If A certain player is going to instantly make your team better then it is worth it no matter the position.Please explain why we would be reaching for a tackle if we stay where we are?

Because there is a big drop-off in Tackle talent after Okung, and yet another drop-off after Bulaga and Williams.

There are three things that can cause a tackle to flop:

- A lack of determination
- Short Arms
- Poor footwork

Okung is strong in all three of those, while the others are all weak. Bulaga has short arms, Williams, has poor footwork, and Davis has a motivation problem. Campbell just isn't a good football player. Brown could end up being a steal, but I don't think he's big enough.

Hm, Brown not being big enough can't cause a tackle to flop as you stated before.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by YouGotGored:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by YouGotGored:
Depends how far Berry falls. I am not suggesting we trade up to a top 6 pick to get Berry. But if that man is available at pick 9 or so then I would definitely want 49ers brass to entertain moving up.

I don't even think Berry is the best S in this class...Earl Thomas is (Mike Mayock agrees)

Then you and Mayock are in the minority.

And I don't understand why people are against taking a safety high. Yes, one can point to players like Ed Reed and Troy Polumalu who have been taking in the mid to late first round, but they were still the top safety prospects. If you were able to redo the draft, I am sure those two would be in the top 5 for sure. People are starting to realize that a GREAT safety can be as important to a defense as a DE, DT, LB ect.

Because it is simply not a position that you need to draft that high, like guard. Many safeties were corners who couldn't cut it, just as many guards were tackles who couldn't cut it. What do you do with a safety who flops (see: Roy Williams)? At least with Earl Thomas you can move him to nickel.

What do you do with a DE or DT that flops? Nothing. But they still are chosen in the top 5 because a great DE/DT is perceived as being a "game-changer". My point is that safety should, and is, starting to get picked higher since if you get the right one they can, and are, game-changers. In fact, people build defenses around great safety play (Ravens, Steelers, Colts, 49ers with Lott, and so forth). If there is one that is perceived to be the next Ed Reed then I have no problem trading up to get him. That is all I am trying to say.

The Berry vs. Thomas comparison I can only speculate on (I am not a trained scout). But to me it seems Berry is a darn good player and has a better shot at succeeding at SAFETY than any other player at that position in the draft.

Originally posted by stever:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by SF4EVA:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:


No.

We are sitting pretty right now. Stay where we are.

Yes -- we should reach for a tackle or hope to get a decent one in the 2nd or 3rd. Good plan...

Using a players position to determine where they should be drafted keeps team from becoming great. If A certain player is going to instantly make your team better then it is worth it no matter the position.Please explain why we would be reaching for a tackle if we stay where we are?

Because there is a big drop-off in Tackle talent after Okung, and yet another drop-off after Bulaga and Williams.

There are three things that can cause a tackle to flop:

- A lack of determination
- Short Arms
- Poor footwork

Okung is strong in all three of those, while the others are all weak. Bulaga has short arms, Williams, has poor footwork, and Davis has a motivation problem. Campbell just isn't a good football player. Brown could end up being a steal, but I don't think he's big enough.

Hm, Brown not being big enough can't cause a tackle to flop as you stated before.

I listed the three biggest things. Some consider Brown to be a really, really good blocking TE.

http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2010cbrown.php

Originally posted by YouGotGored:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by YouGotGored:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by YouGotGored:
Depends how far Berry falls. I am not suggesting we trade up to a top 6 pick to get Berry. But if that man is available at pick 9 or so then I would definitely want 49ers brass to entertain moving up.

I don't even think Berry is the best S in this class...Earl Thomas is (Mike Mayock agrees)

Then you and Mayock are in the minority.

And I don't understand why people are against taking a safety high. Yes, one can point to players like Ed Reed and Troy Polumalu who have been taking in the mid to late first round, but they were still the top safety prospects. If you were able to redo the draft, I am sure those two would be in the top 5 for sure. People are starting to realize that a GREAT safety can be as important to a defense as a DE, DT, LB ect.

Because it is simply not a position that you need to draft that high, like guard. Many safeties were corners who couldn't cut it, just as many guards were tackles who couldn't cut it. What do you do with a safety who flops (see: Roy Williams)? At least with Earl Thomas you can move him to nickel.

What do you do with a DE or DT that flops? Nothing. But they still are chosen in the top 5 because a great DE/DT is perceived as being a "game-changer". My point is that safety should, and is, starting to get picked higher since if you get the right one they can, and are, game-changers. In fact, people build defenses around great safety play (Ravens, Steelers, Colts, 49ers with Lott, and so forth). If there is one that is perceived to be the next Ed Reed then I have no problem trading up to get him. That is all I am trying to say.

The Berry vs. Thomas comparison I can only speculate on (I am not a trained scout). But to me it seems Berry is a darn good player and has a better shot at succeeding at SAFETY than any other player at that position in the draft.

DTs take a long time to mature and they can develop into nose tackles. DEs can move to DT or OLB.

I think DTs have a pretty high bust rate.

Originally posted by YouGotGored:
Depends how far Berry falls. I am not suggesting we trade up to a top 6 pick to get Berry. But if that man is available at pick 9 or so then I would definitely want 49ers brass to entertain moving up.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by KRS-1:
Also please explain how the draft calculator is more reliable than the value chart ? How do you know NFL teams rely on it ?

Mike Sando references the chart here when discusssing the Seahawks trade for Whitehurst in his blog. I have yet to see anything that says this armchair GM David Dodd's calculator has any relevance whatsoever as compared to constant references by national media and football analysts to the value chart. Albeit the value chart is now older and possibly has been modified by some teams it still is what seems most relevant.

Based on recent draft-day trades -- test a few recent draft-day trades. Look, the chart is antiquated at the top. The #1 is worth TWICE as much as the #7, and THREE TIMES as much as the #16? Get real.

The second round is jacked as well. The calculator has much move value on 2nd rounders than the chart...but look at the number of teams willing to trade away future #1s for a second rounder.

The Browns trade up for Quinn followed the trade value chart.

Like I said it appears teams have modified it to their own liking somewhat over the years but you are failing to show how the calculator has relevance with 1st round picks.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Using the draft value calculator, it is an even trade if we send #13 and #17 for picks 3 - 6 and that team's 2nd rounder. If we traded up for Okung at #5, for example, we'd send the 13 and 17 to them and get the #36 back. We would then have Friday picks at 36, 49, and 79.

I really think Okung is the only player worth trading into the Top 5 for. Zoners who want to trade up for a safety (Berry) have a little too much space between the ears. Who the hell trades up for a safety???

When that safety can also play corner and is an elite DB who played at a high level like Berry did, it's understandable why people would want to trade up for him.

Same reason why teams do take safety's in the top 10, worked out pretty well when the 49ers took Ronnie Lott and when the Steelers did the same with Rod Woodson, who were both DB's who like Berry could play CB or S.

While I am not comparing Berry to either, I am simply pointing out that when the consensus across the nation is that a player is one of the 5 best in his entire draft class, it comes with no surprise that fans want to trade up for said prospect.

Lott and Woodson were both drafted AS CBs. Has Berry ever played CB???

He often was used a nickel corner at Tennessee. Seems like you really never watched Berry play if you didn't know that, just like you are knocking on him as being worthy of a top 10 selection when he proved to be a real difference making DB throughout his college career. There is a reason why so many liken his abilities as a game changer to Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu.

Mayock's opinion is not the end all be all and he has proven to be wrong in the past.

Mayock is tripping hard not having Berry the best safety in the draft

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by YouGotGored:
Depends how far Berry falls. I am not suggesting we trade up to a top 6 pick to get Berry. But if that man is available at pick 9 or so then I would definitely want 49ers brass to entertain moving up.

I don't even think Berry is the best S in this class...Earl Thomas is (Mike Mayock agrees)

If you believe Mayock, then why make the trade? We could get Thomas right where we are.