Baalke - Coaching

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Originally posted by NickSh49:

Originally posted by Jd925:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think it is safe to say that Baalke is choosing players directly in line with his confidence in the coaches Harbaugh brought in (and their own research).

All three of these guys have the physical make-up of "prototypical" size for their positions and all at positions we needed (OLB pass rusher, QB & CB/ST) and Baalke is leaving it up to Harbaugh to ensure he AND his staff develop these guys quickly.

Also, another thing to note is that all three players FIT into an offensive and defensive philosophy clearly now; no more round hole-square pegs. These coaches will be tasked to develop specialists now and THAT is a huge difference from the Nolan/Singletary regime.

Stay tuned...

That strategy doesn't make sense to me. You don't coach players to become good football players, you coach good football players to be better football players. If a player doesn't demonstrate he can be productive in competition at a lower college level, it is probably because they aren't good football players to begin with. Aldon Smith and Colin (although in weak competition) have demonstrated they are good productive football players. Culliver? Not so much. Measurables are way way overrated.

Kinda agree. Baalke drafted like a scout with the Culliver pick and everything after Kendall Hunter.

I hope he knows what he's doing, but my confidence in him is shaky at best.

Beyond the 4th round is really a crapshoot anyway. If just one of those guys becomes a starter, he looks good. Aldon Smith will be contributing on 3rd downs right away. Colin Kaepernick will be given every opportunity to become a franchise QB, and Culliver is tasked with becoming a nickle CB only. Kendall Hunter looks to be a change of pace (5 touches a game) back. If we can get some solid contribution from either Kilgore or Person, I would say it was an excellent draft. After all, you don't solve all your problems with 1 draft. But if you can solidify 2 of your positions of need in 1 draft, then I would deem that a success. Anything else is gravy.

agree...3 starters is good to great

Originally posted by Jd925:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think it is safe to say that Baalke is choosing players directly in line with his confidence in the coaches Harbaugh brought in (and their own research).

All three of these guys have the physical make-up of "prototypical" size for their positions and all at positions we needed (OLB pass rusher, QB & CB/ST) and Baalke is leaving it up to Harbaugh to ensure he AND his staff develop these guys quickly.

Also, another thing to note is that all three players FIT into an offensive and defensive philosophy clearly now; no more round hole-square pegs. These coaches will be tasked to develop specialists now and THAT is a huge difference from the Nolan/Singletary regime.

Stay tuned...

That strategy doesn't make sense to me. You don't coach players to become good football players, you coach good football players to be better football players. If a player doesn't demonstrate he can be productive in competition at a lower college level, it is probably because they aren't good football players to begin with. Aldon Smith and Colin (although in weak competition) have demonstrated they are good productive football players. Culliver? Not so much. Measurables are way way overrated.

Aldon Smith playing against weak competition? Kaep yes, but Smith and Mizzou played against so good teams. Culliver played against good and is still learning, his D coach, Ward said he saw a CB and not a saftey thus moved him. Ward coached Nnamdi when he was at with the Raiders.

I hate it also when we try to convert players, especially if the staff has not proven themselves like Nolan, however I do like our staff for the most part.

coaching up a player, what constitutes a good player? Eric Davis, Don Griffin, Tim Mckeyer, Merton Hanks didn't wow people at their schools, but they had the talent and so did the niners to coach them peoperly AND not expose them in their schemes.

Ll

Originally posted by Jd925:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think it is safe to say that Baalke is choosing players directly in line with his confidence in the coaches Harbaugh brought in (and their own research).

All three of these guys have the physical make-up of "prototypical" size for their positions and all at positions we needed (OLB pass rusher, QB & CB/ST) and Baalke is leaving it up to Harbaugh to ensure he AND his staff develop these guys quickly.

Also, another thing to note is that all three players FIT into an offensive and defensive philosophy clearly now; no more round hole-square pegs. These coaches will be tasked to develop specialists now and THAT is a huge difference from the Nolan/Singletary regime.

Stay tuned...

That strategy doesn't make sense to me. You don't coach players to become good football players, you coach good football players to be better football players. If a player doesn't demonstrate he can be productive in competition at a lower college level, it is probably because they aren't good football players to begin with. Aldon Smith and Colin (although in weak competition) have demonstrated they are good productive football players. Culliver? Not so much. Measurables are way way overrated.

Check Clay Mathews college production, the first of several examples that come to mind, and then check back to this thread when your done.

Originally posted by WINiner:
Ll

Originally posted by Jd925:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think it is safe to say that Baalke is choosing players directly in line with his confidence in the coaches Harbaugh brought in (and their own research).

All three of these guys have the physical make-up of "prototypical" size for their positions and all at positions we needed (OLB pass rusher, QB & CB/ST) and Baalke is leaving it up to Harbaugh to ensure he AND his staff develop these guys quickly.

Also, another thing to note is that all three players FIT into an offensive and defensive philosophy clearly now; no more round hole-square pegs. These coaches will be tasked to develop specialists now and THAT is a huge difference from the Nolan/Singletary regime.

Stay tuned...

That strategy doesn't make sense to me. You don't coach players to become good football players, you coach good football players to be better football players. If a player doesn't demonstrate he can be productive in competition at a lower college level, it is probably because they aren't good football players to begin with. Aldon Smith and Colin (although in weak competition) have demonstrated they are good productive football players. Culliver? Not so much. Measurables are way way overrated.

Check Clay Mathews college production, the first of several examples that come to mind, and then check back to this thread when your done.

Why would I want to check? Your reasoning is illogical. It doesn't matter if one or a few who were not productive turned out to be successful. Sure there are occasional late bloomers or some that have been terribly misused in college or were badly injured and never got a chance. It's illogical to think someone who was not productive in college will be productive in an extremely more difficult NFL environment unless there is an unusual circumstance. It's a rare exception. Why do you think pointing out 1% of the cases somehow disproves my argument? I bet the majority of busts happen when GM's pick players that have average production, but have great measurables and believe they can be coached up. Unfortunately it seems we have a GM that believes in this philosophy. I was excited to have Harbaugh as a head coach, but I believe the GM is an even more important part of an organization than the coach is. I liked a few of the draft picks, but I believe the entire draft is average and it may be difficult for Harbaugh to overcome some of the deficiencies in talent in the coming years.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by LottOfDefense:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I think it is safe to say that Baalke is choosing players directly in line with his confidence in the coaches Harbaugh brought in (and their own research).

All three of these guys have the physical make-up of "prototypical" size for their positions and all at positions we needed (OLB pass rusher, QB & CB/ST) and Baalke is leaving it up to Harbaugh to ensure he AND his staff develop these guys quickly.

Also, another thing to note is that all three players FIT into an offensive and defensive philosophy clearly now; no more round hole-square pegs. These coaches will be tasked to develop specialists now and THAT is a huge difference from the Nolan/Singletary regime.

Stay tuned...

Speaking of round hole and a square peg how about taking a productive pass rusher and putting him at FB. A position he never played before in his life at any level...

I was thinking the same thing. Baalke did just the oppiosite. Drafted a 4-3 DE to move ot OLB, QB that never took snaps under center, a wide receiver turned safety, turned corner, 2 OT that are being moved to G/C, and a OLB turned FB. The 9ers have a scout as a GM who drafts according to his inexperienced coach. Hopefully it works out with Harbaugh, but the entire draft was almost all projects.

There are huge #'s of projects / projections in this class. And lots of them could fail. I'm concerned for sure. But what can you do but wait and hope?

There are many of us who share your concerns, but remain, like you, hopeful.

One reason for hope is the fact that the selections made, although projects (as all draft picks are), generally fit the physical profile at the positions for which they were drafted. I think that's what NC is saying.

That's not the "round hole, square peg" issue we've seen in the past--when Nolan, for example, signed a terrific DE (J. Smith) and tried to turn him into an OLB, when he really didn't have all the physical skills or the measurables for that position.

The prevalence of the spread offense in college ball makes it hard to find a prototypical FB, so the team drafted Miller. He has all the measureables for FB, and appears to have the right mentality as well. As a plus, he's got experience rushing the passer on D, and given Harbaugh's willingness to use a FB on D at Stanford, who says he won't do the same--at least once in awhile--with Miller?

I'm looking forward to seeing Miller's progress at FB, and hope to see him take the job from Norris this year. I hope we see him, every once in awhile, on D as well.

I will feel better when fumble machine norris is gone.

Originally posted by PTulini:
I still don't understand why we intend to use Bruce Miller as a FB?!! That's the only questionable pick for me. It seems as though he would make a perfect DE/OLB.

I just am not sure that Miller would be a perfect DE/OLB. If that were true, it is highly likely that he would have been picked before the seventh round.

I will admit that I do find the pick more than a little intriguing.

But, we have to be realistic. If he, or any seventh round pick for that matter, makes the team, the pick used can not be considered an error.

I am willing to bet that the kid makes the team.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by PTulini:
I still don't understand why we intend to use Bruce Miller as a FB?!! That's the only questionable pick for me. It seems as though he would make a perfect DE/OLB.

I just am not sure that Miller would be a perfect DE/OLB. If that were true, it is highly likely that he would have been picked before the seventh round.

I will admit that I do find the pick more than a little intriguing.

But, we have to be realistic. If he, or any seventh round pick for that matter, makes the team, the pick used can not be considered an error.

I am willing to bet that the kid makes the team.

Looks like he's got what it takes--as a special teamer at the least. I'm not gonna bet against you, or him!

Where to start...

The majority of drafted players are tweeners. Colleges don't typically play pro-style offense or defense. There are very few positions in the NFL that require a player to do the same thing that he did in college. GM's draft players that they feel have the physical tools AND the ability to make the transition.

I understand the Bruce Miller pick... have people already forgot about Brit Miller? Who most fans wanted to replace Norris last season? Defensive players usually transition to FB better than oversized RB's because of the type of mentality it takes. It's easy to say we should of drafted a "true" FB, but it's a 53 man roster and players need versatility to make it, if the coaches didn't feel that the other FB prospects provided as much versatility then we made the right pick, it's not like it was an uninformed decision.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by PTulini:
I still don't understand why we intend to use Bruce Miller as a FB?!! That's the only questionable pick for me. It seems as though he would make a perfect DE/OLB.

I just am not sure that Miller would be a perfect DE/OLB. If that were true, it is highly likely that he would have been picked before the seventh round.

I will admit that I do find the pick more than a little intriguing.

But, we have to be realistic. If he, or any seventh round pick for that matter, makes the team, the pick used can not be considered an error.

I am willing to bet that the kid makes the team.

I wonder if NT is the only place where people nitpick over 7th round picks. You are spot on. If he even makes the team, no matter the position, the pick is good. If your 7th round pick contributes anything meaningful, over say 2-3 years, then the pick is a great pick.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by PTulini:
I still don't understand why we intend to use Bruce Miller as a FB?!! That's the only questionable pick for me. It seems as though he would make a perfect DE/OLB.

I just am not sure that Miller would be a perfect DE/OLB. If that were true, it is highly likely that he would have been picked before the seventh round.

I will admit that I do find the pick more than a little intriguing.

But, we have to be realistic. If he, or any seventh round pick for that matter, makes the team, the pick used can not be considered an error.

I am willing to bet that the kid makes the team.

I wonder if NT is the only place where people nitpick over 7th round picks. You are spot on. If he even makes the team, no matter the position, the pick is good. If your 7th round pick contributes anything meaningful, over say 2-3 years, then the pick is a great pick.

In this offseason probably every fan board is nitpicking everypick ever made in the past 3 years.

But I agree, if he makes the team it was a good pick... it's not like Norris was overwhelming by any means last year. And Miller brings added special teams value.

Here's to Baalke for another good draft Thursday --

"You see it around the league with guys that are picked in the fifth, sixth, seventh round that go on to have very good years as young players, and very good careers," Baalke said. "There's good players. You've just got to identify 'em, and a lot of it has to do with the fit. Do they fit the system?" - Trent Baalke

I agreed with the OP. That Baalke gets input from the coaches of what type of traits from players they need from each position on the team. A good coaching staff like Harbaugh's gives good info on the type of players they need. Baalke's statement gives a good window into his willingness to value players ability no matter what round they might be in. He value the players for what they can do within the coaches need for each position not what they can't do outside of it.

We have a hella combo in Harbaugh COTY and Baalke EOTY to go into the draft.