There are 73 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

OTC's 49ers Draft Grade by Pick

Originally posted by ninergold:
If the lockout continues, it will hurt all these developmental players...guys they are trying to switch positions on. They may end up making all their contributions on special teams.

hurts our whole team we have a new system on both offense and defense we need our coaches to teaaach the whole team ASAP if we dont have TC we will have a losing season no matter what
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
Originally posted by ninergold:
If the lockout continues, it will hurt all these developmental players...guys they are trying to switch positions on. They may end up making all their contributions on special teams.

hurts our whole team we have a new system on both offense and defense we need our coaches to teaaach the whole team ASAP if we dont have TC we will have a losing season no matter what

Here's to hoping somehow we get this lockout situation resolved very soon, because absolutely, all these position switches -- aside from the player's development in general -- will set back some of this picks a great deal.

At the same time though, it's not like we're the only team whose rookies are losing time. New coach or not, all rookies are going to be learning a new system basically.
Now that the Niners signed Ian Williams at NT(and he supposedly is having a good training camp thus far), do you give this draft class a higher grade now, OTC? Just curious...
Now that the Niners signed Ian Williams at NT(and he supposedly is having a good training camp thus far), do you give this draft class a higher grade now, OTC? Just curious...
Now that the Niners signed Ian Williams at NT(and he supposedly is having a good training camp thus far), do you give this draft class a higher grade now, OTC? Just curious...
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Now that the Niners signed Ian Williams at NT(and he supposedly is having a good training camp thus far), do you give this draft class a higher grade now, OTC? Just curious...

Essentially replacing Holcomb with Williams, I don't think is enough to change the grade -- especially assuming the 49ers keep Bruce Miller at FB and give him no chance on D. If that happens, I will be able to do nothing but shake my head in disbelief for not even allowing him the slightest opportunity to show off his defensive skill in games.
Originally posted by OnTheClock:

49ers 2011 DRAFT CLASS:


1. DE/OLB Aldon Smith: A-
Apparently we couldn't trade down. Still would've preferred Amukamara, but in the end, the pick fills a need.

2. QB Colin Kaepernick: B
We got a guy who was going to be able to learn and adapt to any system he was drafted into. All-world physical tools and ability, but will need time. The project factor keeps this a B.

3. DB Chris Culliver: C
If he's playing safety, this is a B-minus, but with way other pressing needs, and everyone knowing the DL is more important, I can't give this any better than a C grade.

4. RB Kendall Hunter: A+
Best pick, easily. Terrific, star-caliber running back.

5. OL Daniel Kilgore: C-
Fills a need, but was it really necessary to trade up for this developmental player? Didn't like the value here.

6. WR Ronald Johnson: A-
Now this was a good value. Strong slot receiver prospect. A guy who can get open and adds some depth to our WR corps. Should be ahead of Williams on the depth chart come this Fall.

6. S Colin Jones: B-
Special teamer with potential to develop into a fair back-up DB. Practice squad candidate.

7. LB Bruce Miller: A -- if he'll spend time at linebacker, D -- if he's wasted as a fullback.
Loved the pick. .... Until the rumors of him being converted to FB surfaced. You don't convert a conference Defensive Player of the Year and Bowl Game defensive MVP to fullback. That's idiotic.

7. OL Mike Person: B
Strong developmental OL prospect who excelled at the lower level. Fine with the value here.

7. CB Curtis Holcomb: C
Unlikely to make the team, but at 250th overall, you take a stab at a guy who could be at least a ST's contributor. Why is this a C? Because we ignored DL and passed on a terrific plugger/depth guy in Chris Neild who had the potential to make the team. Holcomb, unless he pulls a Philip Adams, may not even make the practice squad.


OVERALL GRADE: B
It is well understood at this point that we did not take a BPA strategy and did not pick for value. Instead we searched for one specific player, basically, and took him at the spot we saw fit. This is why it took very little time for us to get picks in, as it was already pre-determined the one guy we were taking.

I don't like this strategy, because essentially it strays from ones board. It's risky. We'll see if Baalke's risk is rewarded, but we won't know for at least a year or so how that's going.
So far you hit on everyone but Culliver, Johnson, and Miller. I think most of everyone at the time agreed with you on this. I thought Culliver was a reach for sure.
Originally posted by miked1978:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
49ers 2011 DRAFT CLASS:


1. DE/OLB Aldon Smith: A-
Apparently we couldn't trade down. Still would've preferred Amukamara, but in the end, the pick fills a need.

2. QB Colin Kaepernick: B
We got a guy who was going to be able to learn and adapt to any system he was drafted into. All-world physical tools and ability, but will need time. The project factor keeps this a B.

3. DB Chris Culliver: C
If he's playing safety, this is a B-minus, but with way other pressing needs, and everyone knowing the DL is more important, I can't give this any better than a C grade.

4. RB Kendall Hunter: A+
Best pick, easily. Terrific, star-caliber running back.

5. OL Daniel Kilgore: C-
Fills a need, but was it really necessary to trade up for this developmental player? Didn't like the value here.

6. WR Ronald Johnson: A-
Now this was a good value. Strong slot receiver prospect. A guy who can get open and adds some depth to our WR corps. Should be ahead of Williams on the depth chart come this Fall.

6. S Colin Jones: B-
Special teamer with potential to develop into a fair back-up DB. Practice squad candidate.

7. LB Bruce Miller: A -- if he'll spend time at linebacker, D -- if he's wasted as a fullback.
Loved the pick. .... Until the rumors of him being converted to FB surfaced. You don't convert a conference Defensive Player of the Year and Bowl Game defensive MVP to fullback. That's idiotic.

7. OL Mike Person: B
Strong developmental OL prospect who excelled at the lower level. Fine with the value here.

7. CB Curtis Holcomb: C
Unlikely to make the team, but at 250th overall, you take a stab at a guy who could be at least a ST's contributor. Why is this a C? Because we ignored DL and passed on a terrific plugger/depth guy in Chris Neild who had the potential to make the team. Holcomb, unless he pulls a Philip Adams, may not even make the practice squad.


OVERALL GRADE: B
It is well understood at this point that we did not take a BPA strategy and did not pick for value. Instead we searched for one specific player, basically, and took him at the spot we saw fit. This is why it took very little time for us to get picks in, as it was already pre-determined the one guy we were taking.

I don't like this strategy, because essentially it strays from ones board. It's risky. We'll see if Baalke's risk is rewarded, but we won't know for at least a year or so how that's going.
So far you hit on everyone but Culliver, Johnson, and Miller. I think most of everyone at the time agreed with you on this. I thought Culliver was a reach for sure.

Funny to look back on this. Ronald Johnson is on the Eagles PS now. Thought the guy would do something. He had the ability to get open, but his hands were so terrible it didn't even matter. Still feel Culliver is a better S than CB because of his troubles tracking the ball and making a play on it when it's at his back, despite him being in perfect position. The guy can cover, but if you notice, his best play last year on an INT was when he broke on the ball laterally and made a play on it the way a safety would.

Miller? I admit I hated the idea of moving such a good defensive player to FB. Wouldn't have minded if he was a crappy defensive prospect, but knowing how good he was really made the move all the more baffling -- and as you said, most everyone agree with the majority of these sentiments.
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Funny to look back on this. Ronald Johnson is on the Eagles PS now. Thought the guy would do something. He had the ability to get open, but his hands were so terrible it didn't even matter. Still feel Culliver is a better S than CB because of his troubles tracking the ball and making a play on it when it's at his back, despite him being in perfect position. The guy can cover, but if you notice, his best play last year on an INT was when he broke on the ball laterally and made a play on it the way a safety would.

Miller? I admit I hated the idea of moving such a good defensive player to FB. Wouldn't have minded if he was a crappy defensive prospect, but knowing how good he was really made the move all the more baffling -- and as you said, most everyone agree with the majority of these sentiments.

Meh, you just didn't realize how good Harbaugh was at coaching up players
Funny to look back at things. I was up in arms with the Aldon pick, The only pick I liked was Ro Jo. Shows what I know.
Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Funny to look back on this. Ronald Johnson is on the Eagles PS now. Thought the guy would do something. He had the ability to get open, but his hands were so terrible it didn't even matter. Still feel Culliver is a better S than CB because of his troubles tracking the ball and making a play on it when it's at his back, despite him being in perfect position. The guy can cover, but if you notice, his best play last year on an INT was when he broke on the ball laterally and made a play on it the way a safety would.

Miller? I admit I hated the idea of moving such a good defensive player to FB. Wouldn't have minded if he was a crappy defensive prospect, but knowing how good he was really made the move all the more baffling -- and as you said, most everyone agree with the majority of these sentiments.

Meh, you just didn't realize how good Harbaugh was at coaching up players

No way. I knew Harbaugh was an incredible coach. Hence the uncontainable excitement upon his hiring.

I am not sure how much Harbaugh had to do with Bruce Miller being coached into a very solid FB as a rookie, I think I'd give props to Rathman and then of course Miller himself. (I assume there will be a mention of Marecic, but simply put, Marecic was never really considered a serious defensive prospect. Miller was a monster named defensive player of the year and a bowl game defensive MVP. There was no doubt about Harbaugh's coaching, I -- like many -- just thought Miller deserved a shot in some capacity on defense because of his accomplishments and felt that a move to FB would take away any legitimate chance to do so.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,473
Originally posted by miked1978:
OVERALL GRADE: B
It is well understood at this point that we did not take a BPA strategy and did not pick for value. Instead we searched for one specific player, basically, and took him at the spot we saw fit. This is why it took very little time for us to get picks in, as it was already pre-determined the one guy we were taking.

I don't like this strategy, because essentially it strays from ones board. It's risky. We'll see if Baalke's risk is rewarded, but we won't know for at least a year or so how that's going.

I never did, and still do not, understand this aspect of your original post.

You seem to assume an understanding of the thinking of Baalke and Harbaugh.

How exactly do you know that they strayed from their board?

Since we were not part of the discussion and we do not overhear the discussion, we do not know why it took so little time to get the picks up to the podium.

Baalke may well have thought that Aldon Smith was the best player available.
Considering how well Aldon has played it seems that Baalke's choice was both solid and a good value pick.

Given that to a large degree this was the first draft process controlled by Baalke I find it hard to assume the we understood well his strategic vision.
[ Edited by buck on Apr 11, 2012 at 5:55 AM ]
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by miked1978:
Quote:
OVERALL GRADE: B
It is well understood at this point that we did not take a BPA strategy and did not pick for value. Instead we searched for one specific player, basically, and took him at the spot we saw fit. This is why it took very little time for us to get picks in, as it was already pre-determined the one guy we were taking.

I don't like this strategy, because essentially it strays from ones board. It's risky. We'll see if Baalke's risk is rewarded, but we won't know for at least a year or so how that's going.

I never did, and still do not, understand this aspect of your original post.

You seem to assume an understanding of the thinking of Baalke and Harbaugh.

How exactly do you know that they strayed from their board?

Since we were not part of the discussion and we do not overhear the discussion, we do not know why it took so little time to get the picks up to the podium.

Baalke may well have thought that Aldon Smith was the best player available.
Considering how well Aldon has played it seems that Baalke's choice was both solid and a good value pick.

Given that to a large degree this was the first draft process controlled by Baalke I find it hard to assume the we understood well his strategic vision.

This was obviously a while back, and a kneejerk reaction. I was able to figure out the idea of what they were actually doing not that long after I posted this. It had already been quoted so much, there was no point going back in editing, but explaining what my new thoughts were if someone brought this up -- which you have done now -- was what I would do if that happened. It took a year for someone to say something, so there's your explanation.

My understanding is the 49ers plucked from a predetermined pool of players they felt were draft-worthy that were placed on their board. No one knows the exact formula of determining what weight the team's "needs" will carry in any given situation because I think it varies, but I don't think we knowingly reach for anyone, but get the guys specifically desired, in a spot they feel is a fair/par or good value or better for them.
[ Edited by OnTheClock on Apr 11, 2012 at 6:30 PM ]
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,473
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by miked1978:
Quote:
OVERALL GRADE: B
It is well understood at this point that we did not take a BPA strategy and did not pick for value. Instead we searched for one specific player, basically, and took him at the spot we saw fit. This is why it took very little time for us to get picks in, as it was already pre-determined the one guy we were taking.

I don't like this strategy, because essentially it strays from ones board. It's risky. We'll see if Baalke's risk is rewarded, but we won't know for at least a year or so how that's going.

I never did, and still do not, understand this aspect of your original post.

You seem to assume an understanding of the thinking of Baalke and Harbaugh.

How exactly do you know that they strayed from their board?

Since we were not part of the discussion and we do not overhear the discussion, we do not know why it took so little time to get the picks up to the podium.

Baalke may well have thought that Aldon Smith was the best player available.
Considering how well Aldon has played it seems that Baalke's choice was both solid and a good value pick.

Given that to a large degree this was the first draft process controlled by Baalke I find it hard to assume the we understood well his strategic vision.

This was obviously a while back, and a kneejerk reaction. I was able to figure out the idea of what they were actually doing not that long after I posted this. It had already been quoted so much, there was no point going back in editing, but explaining what my new thoughts were if someone brought this up -- which you have done now -- was what I would do if that happened. It took a year for someone to say something, so there's your explanation.

My understanding is the 49ers plucked from a predetermined pool of players they felt were draft-worthy that were placed on their board. No one knows the exact formula of determining what weight the team's "needs" will carry in any given situation because I think it varies, but I don't think we knowingly reach for anyone, but get the guys specifically desired, in a spot they feel is a fair/par or good value or better for them.

I noticed this after the draft but never raised my questions because the discussion was really about the quality of the picks.

Only did so now when the thread got brought into the present.

I agree that they set a predetermined pool of players and rank them by round and within the round--a draft board if you will.
I also think that if they have selected a player at a certain position, in the following rounds they might choose a low ranked player to avoid duplication.

I also think that they have a list of players who they have excluded even though they might have the requisite skill set. ( Janoris Jenkins for example)

This year's draft is hard to predict but think we can assume the priority will be on:

1. fortifying the passing game (wide receiver and offensive guard)
2. adding a safety and OLB
3. depth on the defensive line

But the bottom line in my estimation is Baalke and Harbaugh will go with best available player.
So we could draft an assumed lesser need prior to an assumed higher need. For example we could easily draft a defensive linemen or OLB before picking a wide receiver or offensive guard. Hell, they might take Fleener in the first and we already have Davis.

It will be interesting to see who they pick and when.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home