There are 111 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

9ersLiferInChicago updated Mock Draft - Post Moss & Manningham

Originally posted by nickbradley:
You can say goodbye to a WR in the 1st -- he won't play as a rookie and will be a project. Waste of a pick, to be honest.
Yeah, a 1st round project. And a pick is a waste if it fills a major need. Well Bro, educate us as to why/how Stephan Hill would not play as a rookie on a team with a major WR hole.
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
I want Hill.

This for sure
Iloka is not a FS, he's a SS so taking him that high seems like a reach to me. I also don't know if Travis Lewis is the right fit at OLB in our system. LIke the Hill, Turbin and Miller picks.
Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Iloka is not a FS, he's a SS so taking him that high seems like a reach to me. I also don't know if Travis Lewis is the right fit at OLB in our system. LIke the Hill, Turbin and Miller picks.
Most have him listed as a FS. Some just have him as S because he often lined up at SS due to his size. But he is going into the draft as a FS (see links below), and regarded as the best at that position by many.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectrankings/2012/FS
http://www.drafttek.com/2012-NFL-Draft-Prospect-Rankings/Top-Free-Safeties
(To name few.)
For those clamoring for a true #1 WR at the bottom of the first round, good luck with that because that's all it would be...luck. Given our lack of front-line needs, I think we could go in just about any direction and be fine. So yes, BPA (depending on the teams' big board) is the best way to go as opposed to trying to reach for a "need."
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
For those clamoring for a true #1 WR at the bottom of the first round, good luck with that because that's all it would be...luck. Given our lack of front-line needs, I think we could go in just about any direction and be fine. So yes, BPA (depending on the teams' big board) is the best way to go as opposed to trying to reach for a "need."
1. I don't know why people are sleeping on Kilgore. I think he is going to surprise some people this camp, though not me. Look for him to possibly start via JH's development.

2. No team is that talented to be picking "BPA" - for luxury - in the 1st round, even late 1st. Teams pick players in the 1st who they feel can start day one or by year two. Plain and simple.

3. So it's never a reach when the player you pick in the first fills a big hole. I remember distinctly durung the 2011 draft how all the commentators and so-called experts saying how Aldon Smith was a reach. Remember, a pass rusher was as glaring of a need for us before the 2011 draft as WR is this years draft.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
1. I don't know why people are sleeping on Kilgore. I think he is going to surprise some people this camp, though not me. Look for him to possibly start via JH's development.

2. No team is that talented to be picking "BPA" - for luxury - in the 1st round, even late 1st. Teams pick players in the 1st who they feel can start day one or by year two. Plain and simple.

3. So it's never a reach when the player you pick in the first fills a big hole. I remember distinctly durung the 2011 draft how all the commentators and so-called experts saying how Aldon Smith was a reach. Remember, a pass rusher was as glaring of a need for us before the 2011 draft as WR is this years draft.

Actually, most of the successful teams draft BPA in round one, when the BPAs are real game-changers. Those teams then reach for needs in later rounds. I agree with the wisdom and evidence behind this strategy (we picked up Willis when we had Smith and Moore), but I am often hoping for a shiny new toy that fits what I perceive to be a need. That means I am usually pissed during the draft, but generally pleased a week (or more) later.

Less successful teams go strictly need in round one, which gets you a WR like woods, a DL like Balmer, or a LT like Levi Brown (they coulda had AP, stupid birds).
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
1. I don't know why people are sleeping on Kilgore. I think he is going to surprise some people this camp, though not me. Look for him to possibly start via JH's development.

2. No team is that talented to be picking "BPA" - for luxury - in the 1st round, even late 1st. Teams pick players in the 1st who they feel can start day one or by year two. Plain and simple.

3. So it's never a reach when the player you pick in the first fills a big hole. I remember distinctly durung the 2011 draft how all the commentators and so-called experts saying how Aldon Smith was a reach. Remember, a pass rusher was as glaring of a need for us before the 2011 draft as WR is this years draft.

Actually, most of the successful teams draft BPA in round one, when the BPAs are real game-changers. Those teams then reach for needs in later rounds. I agree with the wisdom and evidence behind this strategy (we picked up Willis when we had Smith and Moore), but I am often hoping for a shiny new toy that fits what I perceive to be a need. That means I am usually pissed during the draft, but generally pleased a week (or more) later.

Less successful teams go strictly need in round one, which gets you a WR like woods, a DL like Balmer, or a LT like Levi Brown (they coulda had AP, stupid birds).
I won't debate the other stuff. I will say that the 49ers are not that good to be drafting "BPA" in the first. We have at least two positions we should be drafting for starters.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
I won't debate the other stuff. I will say that the 49ers are not that good to be drafting "BPA" in the first. We have at least two positions we should be drafting for starters.

You really believe Stephen Hill is going to step in and be the #1 on a roster with Michael Crabtree, Randy Moss, and Mario Manningham? The same Stephen Hill that caught 28 passes last year and played in a triple option offense?

Hill could be a nice receiver, but it will take him some time to develop. He's basically been running one route the past 4 years.

We could easily get a WR more capable of stepping in and contributing right away in the later rounds, if we draft one at all. We were within two bonehead plays and a bad call of the Super Bowl with Brett Swain as our #3 last year. I think it's safe to say that either Randy Moss or Mario Manningham represents a tremendous upgrade.

Crabtree, Moss, Manningham, Williams, Ginn

That's a pretty solid group of WRs, and there certainly isn't a "glaring hole" there.
[ Edited by JamesGatz83 on Mar 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM ]
Originally posted by JamesGatz83:
You really believe Stephen Hill is going to step in and be the #1 on a roster with Michael Crabtree, Randy Moss, and Mario Manningham? The same Stephen Hill that caught 28 passes last year and played in a triple option offense?

Hill could be a nice receiver, but it will take him some time to develop. He's basically been running one route the past 4 years.

We could easily get a WR more capable of stepping in and contributing right away in the later rounds, if we draft one at all. We were within two bonehead plays and a bad call of the Super Bowl with Brett Swain as our #3 last year. I think it's safe to say that either Randy Moss or Mario Manningham represents a tremendous upgrade.

Crabtree, Moss, Manningham, Williams, Ginn. That's a pretty solid group of WRs, and there certainly isn't a "glaring hole" there.
As I've said before, Hill would be no worse than a #2 for us, and definitely compete for the #1 spot. The addition of Moss and Manningham isn't really an upgrade. As it now stands our WR situation is the same as it was before Morgan left. I have, and remain, critical of the Moss signing. Your WR situation is in trouble when the addition of one Randy Moss is considered and upgrade. To quote myself from a related post:

1. Michael Crabtree - Not a real #1. Too many excuses made for him. Don't work hard at all. Not into the playbook, and it shows on the field. Inconsistant hands. Bad route-running. Can't get separation against even average CB's. Plays more like a #3 than #1 or 2.
2. Randy Moss - Over the hill. Quitter. Not a hard worker. Quitter. Limited route tree. Quitter. Not a team guy. Quitter. Not a blocker. And oh yeah, Quitter.
3. Mario Manningham - Legit #2 guy. Good replacement for Morgan. Consistant. Has to prove he can be a #1. Our best option at WR at the moment.
4. Kyle Williams - One of the better slot guys in the NFL. Solid #3. Has to prove he can be a #2. Very tough and playes bigger than his size. Good, and willing, blocker.
5. Ted Ginn - One of the best return guys in the NFL. Cannot be counted on to be a WR outside of the Jet-Sweep. Needs to concentrate on cornering the return market and be happy with that.

Our WR situation is still no better than last season. Moss isn't long-term, so that signing bothers me. And I'm not counting on Moss making the 53 man roster either. All said, we still need to get two WR out of the draft (one in the 1st I think).

Should be:
1. Manningham/Draft pick
2. Draft pick/Manningham
3. Williams/Crabtree/Moss (if he make the 53 roster)
4. Crabtree/Draft pick
5. Draft pick/Ginn
The way I see our WR corps isn't solid at all.
[ Edited by 9ersLiferInChicago on Mar 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM ]
Well I do not see how the WR so good now. I would rather have Morgon then Manningham so how is that such a big upgrade. Moss didn't play well his last year in the NFL and was traded 2 time. then took a year off and now is going to be a better player. I really hope he is, but i wouldn't bet on it. I think they do need to draft a WR. Im not sure about Hill in first Round if he is a reach and there is someone there that is a much better player then draft the BPA. I think they can use player everywhere. If there is a pass rusher that falls and they feel he is best take him. If it's a Center OK take him. If it's a WR Good Take him.
[ Edited by dlance on Mar 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM ]
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by JamesGatz83:
You really believe Stephen Hill is going to step in and be the #1 on a roster with Michael Crabtree, Randy Moss, and Mario Manningham? The same Stephen Hill that caught 28 passes last year and played in a triple option offense?

Hill could be a nice receiver, but it will take him some time to develop. He's basically been running one route the past 4 years.

We could easily get a WR more capable of stepping in and contributing right away in the later rounds, if we draft one at all. We were within two bonehead plays and a bad call of the Super Bowl with Brett Swain as our #3 last year. I think it's safe to say that either Randy Moss or Mario Manningham represents a tremendous upgrade.

Crabtree, Moss, Manningham, Williams, Ginn. That's a pretty solid group of WRs, and there certainly isn't a "glaring hole" there.
As I've said before, Hill would be no worse than a #2 for us, and definitely compete for the #1 spot. The addition of Moss and Manningham isn't really an upgrade. As it now stands our WR situation is the same as it was before Morgan left. I have, and remain, critical of the Moss signing. Your WR situation is in trouble when the addition of one Randy Moss is considered and upgrade. To quote myself from a related post:

1. Michael Crabtree - Not a real #1. Too many excuses made for him. Don't work hard at all. Not into the playbook, and it shows on the field. Inconsistant hands. Bad route-running. Can't get separation against even average CB's. Plays more like a #3 than #1 or 2.
2. Randy Moss - Over the hill. Quitter. Not a hard worker. Quitter. Limited route tree. Quitter. Not a team guy. Quitter. Not a blocker. And oh yeah, Quitter.
3. Mario Manningham - Legit #2 guy. Good replacement for Morgan. Consistant. Has to prove he can be a #1. Our best option at WR at the moment.
4. Kyle Williams - One of the better slot guys in the NFL. Solid #3. Has to prove he can be a #2. Very tough and playes bigger than his size. Good, and willing, blocker.
5. Ted Ginn - One of the best return guys in the NFL. Cannot be counted on to be a WR outside of the Jet-Sweep. Needs to concentrate on cornering the return market and be happy with that.

Our WR situation is still no better than last season. Moss isn't long-term, so that signing bothers me. And I'm not counting on Moss making the 53 man roster either. All said, we still need to get two WR out of the draft (one in the 1st I think).

Should be:
1. Manningham/Draft pick
2. Draft pick/Manningham
3. Williams/Crabtree/Moss (if he make the 53 roster)
4. Crabtree/Draft pick
5. Draft pick/Ginn
The way I see our WR corps isn't solid at all.
I don't undertand how you see the wr situation on our team. You are saying that Harbaugh and Baalke don't know what their doing. They can be wrong sometimes for sure but you are saying "Crabtree sucks, he's lazy, poor routes, etc... Moss is a quitter, etc... They are obviously taking a gamble on Moss but the boom is way bigger than the bust with him. If he fails, who cares, it's what everyone expects. If he stays motivated to win, he can hopefully perform like he did when he was happy with the Pats.
Crabtree you dog all the time but Harbs has nothing but praise for him.

If the offense was really going to be formed like you believe (opening it up more as I have seen in other threads), Then wouldn't we have drafted or signed more Wr's. First year the only wr movement that I can remember is bringing in Braylon and drafting Johnson. Braylon didn't work and Johnson a bust. Now in FA, we didn't go after all these wr's that people thought we would. We didn't even bring them in. We signed Moss to replace Braylon, and Manningham to replace Morgan. They offense looks exactly the same to me...we are just hoping they stay healthy to get on the field.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
For those clamoring for a true #1 WR at the bottom of the first round, good luck with that because that's all it would be...luck. Given our lack of front-line needs, I think we could go in just about any direction and be fine. So yes, BPA (depending on the teams' big board) is the best way to go as opposed to trying to reach for a "need."
1. I don't know why people are sleeping on Kilgore. I think he is going to surprise some people this camp, though not me. Look for him to possibly start via JH's development.

2. No team is that talented to be picking "BPA" - for luxury - in the 1st round, even late 1st. Teams pick players in the 1st who they feel can start day one or by year two. Plain and simple.

3. So it's never a reach when the player you pick in the first fills a big hole. I remember distinctly durung the 2011 draft how all the commentators and so-called experts saying how Aldon Smith was a reach. Remember, a pass rusher was as glaring of a need for us before the 2011 draft as WR is this years draft.

1.) I don't know enough about Kilgore to say one way or another...if you know something about him that we don't please share, otherwise you're just guessing. Which is fine, but not exactly pursuasive.

2.) BPA isn't a luxury, it's a strategy that teams like the Ravens have employed very successfully over the years. Now, it doesn't mean you totally ignore your needs...it just means you choose the best football player on your board even though you might have more pressing needs somewhere else. Teams have really struck out when they reach for guys that aren't the best football players available, but that fill a current need. As a rule of thumb (and yes, there are always exceptions), you're better off grabbing the best football player on the board as opposed to getting a lesser football player that scratches the most immediate itch.

3.) In the case of Aldon Smith, it was clearly a matter of need-meets-BPA (according to the Niners). What commentators or analysts say about prospects is irrelevant; it's all about what your team board looks like, and clearly Aldon was a guy that was high on OUR board, and that's all that matters. He was a guy that both filled a need and was the best player available by the team's standards; we know this because they selected him over other players that were deemed better prospects by the so-called experts. He was the best available player on the Niner board, and he filled a need...that's a win-win.

And all that said, the draft is a crap shoot so even if you THINK you're getting the BPA or reaching to fill a need, you really never know if it's going to work out no matter how well thought out the process or strong the argument for taking one guy over another. You just never know.

Btw, choosing a BPA doesn't mean you're not getting a year-1 or year-2 starter...it's not a mutually exclusive thing.
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
For those clamoring for a true #1 WR at the bottom of the first round, good luck with that because that's all it would be...luck. Given our lack of front-line needs, I think we could go in just about any direction and be fine. So yes, BPA (depending on the teams' big board) is the best way to go as opposed to trying to reach for a "need."
1. I don't know why people are sleeping on Kilgore. I think he is going to surprise some people this camp, though not me. Look for him to possibly start via JH's development.

2. No team is that talented to be picking "BPA" - for luxury - in the 1st round, even late 1st. Teams pick players in the 1st who they feel can start day one or by year two. Plain and simple.

3. So it's never a reach when the player you pick in the first fills a big hole. I remember distinctly durung the 2011 draft how all the commentators and so-called experts saying how Aldon Smith was a reach. Remember, a pass rusher was as glaring of a need for us before the 2011 draft as WR is this years draft.

1.) I don't know enough about Kilgore to say one way or another...if you know something about him that we don't please share, otherwise you're just guessing. Which is fine, but not exactly pursuasive.

2.) BPA isn't a luxury, it's a strategy that teams like the Ravens have employed very successfully over the years. Now, it doesn't mean you totally ignore your needs...it just means you choose the best football player on your board even though you might have more pressing needs somewhere else. Teams have really struck out when they reach for guys that aren't the best football players available, but that fill a current need. As a rule of thumb (and yes, there are always exceptions), you're better off grabbing the best football player on the board as opposed to getting a lesser football player that scratches the most immediate itch.

3.) In the case of Aldon Smith, it was clearly a matter of need-meets-BPA (according to the Niners). What commentators or analysts say about prospects is irrelevant; it's all about what your team board looks like, and clearly Aldon was a guy that was high on OUR board, and that's all that matters. He was a guy that both filled a need and was the best player available by the team's standards; we know this because they selected him over other players that were deemed better prospects by the so-called experts. He was the best available player on the Niner board, and he filled a need...that's a win-win.

And all that said, the draft is a crap shoot so even if you THINK you're getting the BPA or reaching to fill a need, you really never know if it's going to work out no matter how well thought out the process or strong the argument for taking one guy over another. You just never know.

Btw, choosing a BPA doesn't mean you're not getting a year-1 or year-2 starter...it's not a mutually exclusive thing.


Very convoluted, but true. Nice explanation.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
As I've said before, Hill would be no worse than a #2 for us, and definitely compete for the #1 spot. The addition of Moss and Manningham isn't really an upgrade. As it now stands our WR situation is the same as it was before Morgan left. I have, and remain, critical of the Moss signing. Your WR situation is in trouble when the addition of one Randy Moss is considered and upgrade. To quote myself from a related post:

1. Michael Crabtree - Not a real #1. Too many excuses made for him. Don't work hard at all. Not into the playbook, and it shows on the field. Inconsistant hands. Bad route-running. Can't get separation against even average CB's. Plays more like a #3 than #1 or 2.
2. Randy Moss - Over the hill. Quitter. Not a hard worker. Quitter. Limited route tree. Quitter. Not a team guy. Quitter. Not a blocker. And oh yeah, Quitter.
3. Mario Manningham - Legit #2 guy. Good replacement for Morgan. Consistant. Has to prove he can be a #1. Our best option at WR at the moment.
4. Kyle Williams - One of the better slot guys in the NFL. Solid #3. Has to prove he can be a #2. Very tough and playes bigger than his size. Good, and willing, blocker.
5. Ted Ginn - One of the best return guys in the NFL. Cannot be counted on to be a WR outside of the Jet-Sweep. Needs to concentrate on cornering the return market and be happy with that.

Our WR situation is still no better than last season. Moss isn't long-term, so that signing bothers me. And I'm not counting on Moss making the 53 man roster either. All said, we still need to get two WR out of the draft (one in the 1st I think).

Should be:
1. Manningham/Draft pick
2. Draft pick/Manningham
3. Williams/Crabtree/Moss (if he make the 53 roster)
4. Crabtree/Draft pick
5. Draft pick/Ginn
The way I see our WR corps isn't solid at all.

Stephen Hill is not going to come in and be better than Crabtree, Moss, and Manningham from day one. He is a project with excellent physical abilities, but a project nonetheless.

In your post you criticized Moss's limited route tree; what about Hill's? The guy has ZERO relevant experience outside of a triple option offense. He was basically a wide tackle for Paul Johnson.

A guy like Michael Floyd or Kendall Wright might be able to come in and compete towards the top of our depth chart, but Baalke and Harbaugh don't seem to be going that route. They did not sign Moss and Manningham to be #3 and #4.

We hardly ever utilize sets that involve 4 WRs. Far more often you'll see 2 WRs and 2 TEs on the field on passing downs. Kyle Williams and Ted Ginn are more than adequate at #4 and #5.