Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
I don't think you fully read my post. As stated in my post, this re-do of the Niners draft is based on the idea that a) the Niners did not trade up or down at number 7 (although I would have been happy to move picks for Peterson); and b) they did not make the trade for Kaepernick, nor for Kilgore. So, the added pick in the fourth and sixth round exists (12 selections overall), and hence, Cannon would have been my second fourth round pick.
As for selecting guys who went after the Niners' selection, that is always the main premise. You can't select guys who went before.
To my knowledge, I have never used the word, "reach", for Smith at 7. Since I projected him to go at 11, he was in the area I suspected a team might select him. I avoid saying "reach" because it makes people angry, frustrated, irrational. I use the term, "value", instead. You are right that some may say that Smith may have more value than Watt, but team boards are varied. What some team may value in Watt, may not be what they value in Smith. On my board, Smith does not have 7th overall value, since I do not believe he is near the 7th overall best player. Many teams would probably agree with me. At the same time, some would disagree and say that Smith does has 7th overall value. In the end, it appeared the team was stuck with the 7th overall, and in this scenario, I think the better, wiser, safer selection was Watt, not Smith.
As for teams converting players to positions that they were not projected to be drafting for (in the case of Clay), that is the drafting team's perogative. It does not mean the player cannot play the position they played in college. They may run a scheme that could use the player in a different position (like Miller for the Niners).
You believe my draft is not better than the Niners, and that is your right. However, in comparing my drafts to the Niners over the years, I think you would easily trade the guys we selected for the ones I earmarked in the past. We wouldn't have seen the mountain of second and third round disasters that have plagued our teams.
It appeared the Niners did not come away with either of their intended goals for the 7th overall, selecting Patrick Peterson, nor trading with Atlanta for a boatload of picks. Whether it be bad luck, or poor planning, it sure appeared the Niners were stuck with the 7th overall, and simply picked the best player on their board, based on need, which was Smith. That set the wheels in motion for a series of days where they did not get the best picks in their slots.
Oh, I read your post. I'm just not into hypotheticals. "What would have happened if the Niners hadn't traded up or down, etc."
The Niners draft is done and on the record. If you want to come up with a better scenario, then you have to compare it directly to what they did, not to what might have occurred if they hadn't done what they did. Likewise, the actual draft has occurred, so we don't need to conjecture about player rankings.
A direct comparison is helpful, IMHO.
Further, I'm not sure you want to get into comparisions of past drafts, or your analyses of past drafts. For one, we no longer have McGloughan doing the drafting, or Nolan/Singletary looking over his shoulder on draft day.
Same goes for Baalke/Singletary. Not sure Baalke would have gone with two OL in the first round, or with Mays in the second, last year without Singletary's input.
So the focus is just on this year's draft. Truly, the biggest lack is no NT. Although that is of some concern, I am nevertheless intrigued by the Baalke/Harbaugh leadership and the amount of thought and planning they had to have put into this draft.
They could not have missed the NT issue, so they must have something else in mind.
As for the first round scenario you present, rumor has it that they were prepared to trade back with Atlanta, but it fell through. Maybe they tried to trade up to get Peterson, but I've never heard anyone confirm that.
Neither of those two possibilities means that Aldon Smith wasn't or isn't worth the #7 pick, or that the Niner's didn't get most, if not all the players they'd targeted.
So, rather than a grade--which is really meaningless--I prefer to consider the Niner's draft this year as intriguing and filled with potential. I consider your hypothetical draft to be interesting, but it does not contain overwhelming evidence that the Niners should have gone a different way. IMHO.
I don't understand how you can say that you are not interested in hypotheticals, since the nature of this thread is hypothetical: "If you could redo one of the 49ers picks..."
If I am re-doing the draft, I would go down a different path...period. No trade for CK, and the keeping of the 12 picks.
As for the idea that the previous regimes were far inferior in drafting players compared to this one, I'm not so sure that will turn out to be the case. Wasn't Singletary supposed to be superior to Nolan? Wasn't Scot supposed to be superior to Nolan having last calls on the draft? Just because they are newer does not automatically mean they are better.
I think you are jumping the gun to assume that the team will be much improved on draft days now that Baalke is in charge, especially since he was the head of scouting for years, and second to Scot as of last year. I tend to be skeptical that his opinion was bypassed, and that he was ignored by the top guys. Instead, I tend to believe a lot of these guys on the roster were strongly encouraged to be drafted by Trent.
As for my presumption that the guys in charge were blindsided by the two scenarios that did not play out: Peterson at 7, or the mega-trade with Atlanta, this falls into the lap of responsibility for Baalke. He is running the show, and he could have made an attractive enough offer to get something done if they found either move to be critically important. Obviously, they were willing to deal to get CK.
Plan C is usually far inferior to Plan A. Whether the team ends up paying a price in the end, or benefitting from the orginal plans going south, for the team to be stuck at 7 is problematic if they never planned to draft Aldon Smith at 7.
I suppose I should restate that as "I'm not into wild and unreasonable hypotheticals, with no basis in fact," since that's what I was trying to say.
The "let's pretend we traded all our picks for Cam Newton" kind of hypos are not of much interest, at least to me.
We know what the Niner draft looks like, and we know what every other team's draft looks like, and we know where every player that was drafted ended up. So we don't need to speculate about those things.
Singling out a single pick and arguing that there could have been a better choice, if based on solid data and the way things actually fell (not arguing that the Niners should have taken someone at #36 who was actually taken at #35, for example) seems like a reasonable basis for discussion.
I disagree with your argument that Baalke failed to take advantage of an opportunity to trade up for Peterson, or down for alot more picks, so had to "settle" for Aldon Smith. You say that Smith was "Plan C," or the third option, and therefore necessarily inferior.
I'd argue that Aldon Smith was Plan A, the guy they figured they'd get at #7 all along--or certainly one of a very few who'd be available to them there.
Would they have been disappointed that the two presumed trade scenarios didn't play out? Probably, but its unlikely that those two options were in their original plans; its much more likely that those were discussions held on day one of the draft which didn't bear fruit.
That fact shouldn't affect Aldon Smith's status or potential. He remains an excellent choice at #7.
Like Mayock said on NFLNetwork at the time of the draft, Aldon Smith is an explosive guy with a unique set of pass rushing skills. He's still got to prove himself on the field, but his abilities are not changed by any unexecuted trade, up or down, that might have been considered on draft day. Those things shouldn't be considered in deciding his draft value. IMHO.
[ Edited by oldninerdude on May 24, 2011 at 1:01 PM ]