Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Originally posted by WINiner:
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.
You can not force a trade if your partner doesn't want to dance. Baalke has already said they were in discussions with Atlanta and Atlanta broke off talks. IMO it is pretty obvious that Cleavland talked to Atlanta and let them know that if Jones was going to be drafted, it would be at their spot and no other. Atlanta did what they felt they had to do to get their player.
You can make the deal as attractive as you like, but if Atlanta felt another team was going to get their guy at Cleavland's spot then it doesn't mater how attractive the deal Baalke offered was now does it?
What I am saying is that getting stuck at 7 with a player like Smith was not a good outcome for the team. It would have been better to be more proactive, and end up sending the 7th and 76th overall (and maybe a 5th or 6th rounder) to get Patrick Peterson at 4 or 5, or find a trade partner willing to move down. Or, if feeling that an outsider, like the Browns, might trump your deal, then you make a better deal (the Niners were in no danger of selecting Jones, and did not need the same package offered to the Browns).
In other words, the team was stuck with the number 7, and while this sometimes happens, I don't think it is a cause for celebration, or dismissal of a team optimizing their draft opportunity.
If you want something, get it done. The good teams of the NFL manipulate the draft to get the players they want, either moving up or down.
I think you over simplify manipulating the draft. If Cincy thought Green was the hands down best WR, and they had desperate need for a WR then why would they risk moving down from 4 to 7 when they know darn well that Cleavland is shopping the 6th pick? Also there was little to no chance AZ was going to allow a trade to 5 with fair compensation being a division rival.
I think your other mistake is assuming the team and other NFL teams valued Smith the same as you did. I think the Niners had their Hearts set on Miller, Peterson, and Smith and in that order.
Would you have been okay with the Niners giving a deal similar to what Atlanta gave Cleavland, to move up to 4 or 5 for Peterson?
I just think you over simplify and are overly critical of the teams inability to move in the 1st in what is obviously an abnormal draft in light of the labor situation.