There are 890 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

9ersLiferInChicago updated Mock Draft - Post Moss & Manningham

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
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.
Good response. I disagree mostly, but good response.

1. You are correct, I am guessing when it comes to Kilgore. No one really knows what this kid can do but the coaching staff. But it was clear that JH was grooming this kid to start at some point (along with Beeler). So, giving JH's developmental abilities the benefit of the doubt I have to expect - guess - that this is the year Kilgore or Person (or both) gets a chance to showcase that development. In my opinion, to draft G in the 1st - not that I'm against it - would indicate that Kilgore and Person aren't ready. We will see come draft day. But I think Kilgore (and perhaps Beeler) may surprise some people this year.

2. Here's were I have a fundamental difference with you (and most here in The Zone) when it comes to this "BPA" thing. My personal belief is that fans here in The Zone (not all) are over emphasizing the "BPA" and "reaching" in order to justify drafting an unneeded TE in the 1st. If I didn't know better I'd say the 49ers had no TE's at all. So, what is your definition of "reaching"? Hill is in the Calvin Johnson mold with very similar measurables. Was he a "reach" when Detroit picked him 2nd overall? Hill's game, like Johnson's coming out of the same school and running a similar offense, translates beautifully with the NFL. So I don't think Hill is a "reach" for any team in the 1st round. None of us are in the war rooms of NFL team so none of really know if a player was BPA or a player of need high on their board, that is unless they let it be known. Outside of that, we're all taking educated guesses (unless we have some relationship with someone on the coaching staff). And based on what I've observed of previous drafts (been watching them for 20+ years now) almost always, unless it's a QB, teams use that first rounder for a guy who they feel can come in and start right away or by year two. Just because a team picks for need in the first don't mean they are reaching. A team can - and often do - trade out of the 1st if they feel the talent available is a "reach" (whatever you think it means) or otherwise not worth of drafting there.


3. You kind of make my point about NFL team's war room and their big board. No one knew that Aldon was rated that high on the 49ers board until they drafted him. But like you said, you really don't know until you get these players on an NFL field with NFL talent. And, with all their evaluation, tests, and interviews, not even the coaches can get around that. (I can attest to that in my own job.) Which is why "BPA" in the 1st isn't wise for this team. We ave at least two positions we can fill in the 1st, and neither would be a "reach" to fill it.
  • kush
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,695
9erslifer-

Not to say Stephen Hill isn't an exciting prospect, but his college career does not compare well to CJs.

Calvin Johnson had 178 catches. Stephen Hill had 50-something. Calvin Johnson got a lot more experience running routes and had a lot more tape on him. They share a similar size (although CJ is clearly bigger and taller), similar speed and they went to the same school...aside from that, comparing the two as prospects is borderline laughable.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago
Good response. I disagree mostly, but good response.

1. You are correct, I am guessing when it comes to Kilgore. No one really knows what this kid can do but the coaching staff. But it was clear that JH was grooming this kid to start at some point (along with Beeler). So, giving JH's developmental abilities the benefit of the doubt I have to expect - guess - that this is the year Kilgore or Person (or both) gets a chance to showcase that development. In my opinion, to draft G in the 1st - not that I'm against it - would indicate that Kilgore and Person aren't ready. We will see come draft day. But I think Kilgore (and perhaps Beeler) may surprise some people this year.

2. Here's were I have a fundamental difference with you (and most here in The Zone) when it comes to this "BPA" thing. My personal belief is that fans here in The Zone (not all) are over emphasizing the "BPA" and "reaching" in order to justify drafting an unneeded TE in the 1st. If I didn't know better I'd say the 49ers had no TE's at all. So, what is your definition of "reaching"? Hill is in the Calvin Johnson mold with very similar measurables. Was he a "reach" when Detroit picked him 2nd overall? Hill's game, like Johnson's coming out of the same school and running a similar offense, translates beautifully with the NFL. So I don't think Hill is a "reach" for any team in the 1st round. None of us are in the war rooms of NFL team so none of really know if a player was BPA or a player of need high on their board, that is unless they let it be known. Outside of that, we're all taking educated guesses (unless we have some relationship with someone on the coaching staff). And based on what I've observed of previous drafts (been watching them for 20+ years now) almost always, unless it's a QB, teams use that first rounder for a guy who they feel can come in and start right away or by year two. Just because a team picks for need in the first don't mean they are reaching. A team can - and often do - trade out of the 1st if they feel the talent available is a "reach" (whatever you think it means) or otherwise not worth of drafting there.


3. You kind of make my point about NFL team's war room and their big board. No one knew that Aldon was rated that high on the 49ers board until they drafted him. But like you said, you really don't know until you get these players on an NFL field with NFL talent. And, with all their evaluation, tests, and interviews, not even the coaches can get around that. (I can attest to that in my own job.) Which is why "BPA" in the 1st isn't wise for this team. We ave at least two positions we can fill in the 1st, and neither would be a "reach" to fill it.

I disagree wholeheartedly with #2. I think you are trivializing an argument that you disagree with in order to make your own better. If DeCastro, Floyd, Richardson, Glenn, or Poe dropped to 30, you wouldn't find a lot of BPA-advocates complaining if we took them. It just seems really unlikely that any of those guys will make it down that far. I think Fleener (who has clearly become the bane of your existence) is likely to be among the best players available at #30, but I totally trust our FO to make that call. I would be surprised and disappointed if they reached for a lesser talent in a position of need in the first round, regardless of who it is. I am well aware that our FO has more resources, time, and expertise invested in their talent evaluations, so I defer to their evaluations. I like certain players because I imagine what they would do in our system. If they are available and the team skips them, I will probably pout, but I won't b*tch (unless the guy they got sucks in a few years and the guy I wanted is awesome ).
Originally posted by JamesGatz83:
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.
In that way the two cannot be compared. In his 15 or 16 NFL years Moss has shown us he's primarily a "go" route, deep out, sideline painter. He has not observed him consistently using a more, say, complete route tree. Hill has a whole career ahead of him, and, unlike Moss, is coachable. Hill's ability to learn new routes is wide open. And again, Calvin Johnson went to the same school in the same offense so it's foolish to use that as a reason to call him a "project". You are right about Manningham. We didn't sign him to be #3 or 4. He will compete for the #1 spot for sure. But so would Hill. And I think he would be better than any WR we currently have on hand and be no worse than #2.

But Moss? I'm not so sure he even makes the final roster. And if he do I seriously doubt he's better than a 3 or 4, and if he is then our WR situation is in major trouble. Neither Floyd or Wright will be available come pick 30, and if they were my choice would be Floyd. Finally, it's true we didn't use a lot of pure 4 WR sets last season. But that's because our options at WR stunk up the joint. And it's amazing how people conveniently look over that fact when they religiously declare we are just a 2 TE offense, as if merely stating it is suppose to end all debate. So our coaching staff had to get creative with formations and schemes with our TE's because due to the lack of production of our WR. It's quit possible that our "conservative" playcalling had as much to do with the lack of confidence in our WR's as Alex Smith. But at least Smith showed his game when the game was on the line. I can't say the same for our WRs. JH didn't devalue our WRs, they devalued themselves, especially Crabs. So JH & Co. adjusted around them.

Oh, and Ted Ginn shouldn't be considered anything other than a return specialist and shouldn't be put anywhere near the WR depth chart, not even a #5.
[ Edited by 9ersLiferInChicago on Mar 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM ]
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
I disagree wholeheartedly with #2. I think you are trivializing an argument that you disagree with in order to make your own better. If DeCastro, Floyd, Richardson, Glenn, or Poe dropped to 30, you wouldn't find a lot of BPA-advocates complaining if we took them. It just seems really unlikely that any of those guys will make it down that far. I think Fleener (who has clearly become the bane of your existence) is likely to be among the best players available at #30, but I totally trust our FO to make that call. I would be surprised and disappointed if they reached for a lesser talent in a position of need in the first round, regardless of who it is. I am well aware that our FO has more resources, time, and expertise invested in their talent evaluations, so I defer to their evaluations. I like certain players because I imagine what they would do in our system. If they are available and the team skips them, I will probably pout, but I won't b*tch (unless the guy they got sucks in a few years and the guy I wanted is awesome ).
Wow, the bane of my existence!

Obviously, you have not read much of what I've stated on this issue. I don't hate the kid. Hell, I don't even know him. I have consistently maintained that Fleener - the TE position - isn't what this team needs in the 1st round. Now,if our FO pick him or someone other than a WR I'd be fine with it - I wouldn't like it, but I'll live. But lets not get it twisted Bro. I have nothing personally against Fleener. I just don't think he's the best use of our 1st pick.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
In that way the two cannot be compared. In his 15 or 16 NFL years Moss has shown us he's primarily a "go" route, deep out, sideline painter. He has not observed him consistently using a more, say, complete route tree. Hill has a whole career ahead of him, and, unlike Moss, is coachable. Hill's ability to learn new routes is wide open. And again, Calvin Johnson went to the same school in the same offense so it's foolish to use that as a reason to call him a "project". You are right about Manningham. We didn't sign him to be #3 or 4. He will compete for the #1 spot for sure. But so would Hill. And I think he would be better than any WR we currently have on hand and be no worse than #2.

But Moss? I'm not so sure he even makes the final roster. And if he do I seriously doubt he's better than a 3 or 4, and if he is then our WR situation is in major trouble. Neither Floyd or Wright will be available come pick 30, and if they were my choice would be Floyd. Finally, it's true we didn't use a lot of pure 4 WR sets last season. But that's because our options at WR stunk up the joint. And it's amazing how people conveniently look over that fact when they religiously declare we are just a 2 TE offense, as if merely stating it is suppose to end all debate. So our coaching staff had to get creative with formations and schemes with our TE's because due to the lack of production of our WR. It's quit possible that our "conservative" playcalling had as much to do with the lack of confidence in our WR's as Alex Smith. But at least Smith showed his game when the game was on the line. I can't say the same for our WRs. JH didn't devalue our WRs, they devalued themselves, especially Crabs. So JH & Co. adjusted around them.

Oh, and Ted Ginn shouldn't be considered anything other than a return specialist and shouldn't be put anywhere near the WR depth chart, not even a #5.

Ummm... You know that CJ and Hill DID NOT play in the same offense, right? CJ played in Chan Gailey's spread scheme, and Hill played in a triple option offense. Also, it has been stated over and over that Harbaugh has ALWAYS used multiple TE sets everywhere he has coached. It takes a larger leap in reasoning to claim (w/no evidence) that he will suddenly change his offense to spread it out.
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Ummm... You know that CJ and Hill DID NOT play in the same offense, right? CJ played in Chan Gailey's spread scheme, and Hill played in a triple option offense. Also, it has been stated over and over that Harbaugh has ALWAYS used multiple TE sets everywhere he has coached. It takes a larger leap in reasoning to claim (w/no evidence) that he will suddenly change his offense to spread it out.
Fine, but my main point is about his overall game and how it translates perfectly with the NFL game. The offense he played in isn't important to me. If he played at Stanford fans on The Zone would be screeming dtraft this kid. I know its been stated over and over about how Harbaugh uses two TE's everywhere he's been. My point on this, again , is becasue we have two pretty good TE's - one good and the other the best - we don't need to take a TE in the 1st. We are set at that position. I cannot tell you how many times I've stated that.

And nowhere in my post did I ever say that Harbaugh was going to "suddenly change his offense". He will comtinue to use his two TE's. What I have said is that I don't think he'll be using it as much this season. That don't mean I think we'll try to become NE and spread'm out 90% of the time. But we are not going to get to the NFC title game with a average WR corps either. Harbaugh is a smart man. He knows he isn't coaching Stanford. He's in the NFL, so he knows you have to be able to threaten the defense with your WR's. If fans think we are going to be able to build on last season with Crabs, Moss, Manningham and Williams they are, respectfully, dreaming. If Crabs and Moss has shown us nothing else they have shown us that they cannot be counted on when the chips are down and when times are rough. The two reliable recievers we have are Williams (just no returns, please) and Manningham. But neither are #1's and neither will command a double team.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Fine, but my main point is about his overall game and how it translates perfectly with the NFL game. The offense he played in isn't important to me. If he played at Stanford fans on The Zone would be screeming dtraft this kid. I know its been stated over and over about how Harbaugh uses two TE's everywhere he's been. My point on this, again , is becasue we have two pretty good TE's - one good and the other the best - we don't need to take a TE in the 1st. We are set at that position. I cannot tell you how many times I've stated that.

And nowhere in my post did I ever say that Harbaugh was going to "suddenly change his offense". He will comtinue to use his two TE's. What I have said is that I don't think he'll be using it as much this season. That don't mean I think we'll try to become NE and spread'm out 90% of the time. But we are not going to get to the NFC title game with a average WR corps either. Harbaugh is a smart man. He knows he isn't coaching Stanford. He's in the NFL, so he knows you have to be able to threaten the defense with your WR's. If fans think we are going to be able to build on last season with Crabs, Moss, Manningham and Williams they are, respectfully, dreaming. If Crabs and Moss has shown us nothing else they have shown us that they cannot be counted on when the chips are down and when times are rough. The two reliable recievers we have are Williams (just no returns, please) and Manningham. But neither are #1's and neither will command a double team.

Stephen Hill's game translates perfectly to the NFL? What are you talking about? Unless he joins up with Tim Tebow somewhere and they install a triple option offense, we have no idea how he'll translate to the NFL. He has zero experience in an NFL-relevant offensive system.

If you draft Hill, it's purely on measurables and projectability. Like I said, it is very unlikely that Hill is going to step in day one and surpass Crabtree, Moss, and Manningham on the depth chart, let alone Williams and Ginn.

Furthermore, your idea that Ginn isn't adequate as a #5 WR is laughable. Do you know the types of players that usually occupy the #5 spot on WR depth charts? Ginn would be one of the best #5 WRs in all of football.

Also, given the nature of our offense and Delanie Walker's limited ability as a traditional TE due to his lack of size, you could argue that we need a TE more than we need a WR. Our third TE right now is Nate Byham. If Vernon or Delanie goes down, we could be in trouble. If one of our WRs goes down, we're fine.

Simple math: we use as many 2 TE sets as we do 2 WR sets. We have more viable WRs than viable TEs.

Edit to add: If I see one more person compare Stephen Hill to Calvin Johnson, my head might explode. There are no similarities aside from the fact they're both tall, fast, and played at Georgia Tech. Like WRATHman said, they played in completely different systems under different coaches. Calvin Johnson was enormously productive at GT. Hill, not so much.
[ Edited by JamesGatz83 on Mar 25, 2012 at 6:52 AM ]
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Fine, but my main point is about his overall game and how it translates perfectly with the NFL game. The offense he played in isn't important to me. If he played at Stanford fans on The Zone would be screeming dtraft this kid. I know its been stated over and over about how Harbaugh uses two TE's everywhere he's been. My point on this, again , is becasue we have two pretty good TE's - one good and the other the best - we don't need to take a TE in the 1st. We are set at that position. I cannot tell you how many times I've stated that.

And nowhere in my post did I ever say that Harbaugh was going to "suddenly change his offense". He will comtinue to use his two TE's. What I have said is that I don't think he'll be using it as much this season. That don't mean I think we'll try to become NE and spread'm out 90% of the time. But we are not going to get to the NFC title game with a average WR corps either. Harbaugh is a smart man. He knows he isn't coaching Stanford. He's in the NFL, so he knows you have to be able to threaten the defense with your WR's. If fans think we are going to be able to build on last season with Crabs, Moss, Manningham and Williams they are, respectfully, dreaming. If Crabs and Moss has shown us nothing else they have shown us that they cannot be counted on when the chips are down and when times are rough. The two reliable recievers we have are Williams (just no returns, please) and Manningham. But neither are #1's and neither will command a double team.

As much as you have stated that other posters have skewed their points to support the drafting of their preferred player, I find it laughable that you slam our WRs and call Walker good. The guy has come through in the clutch one time, and he has had numerous drops and fumbles at the worst moments. He adds versatility to the offense as an HB, and Byham is a good blocking TE, but there is obvious room for impovement at TE. For our team, 2nd TE IS a starting position. 3rd WR is not a starting position. I would not be surprise if we carried 4 TEs, with Walker/Byham roatating through in a backup FB role. I think Crabtree will undoubtedly (barring injury) contribute more than any drafted receiver, and Moss and/or Manningham will as well. Williams should be growing into a larger role as a WR. That puts new guy anywhere from 3-5 starting out.

Let's be honest here. You have stated many times, in numerous posts across different threads, that we are not a 2 TE offense. You have stated that the TE is less important than the WR in the passing game, and you have based your opinion on your own extensive experience in football, and the conversations you have had with other reputable football minds. When other posters referenced Harbaugh's history enough times, you went silent on the issue for a couple of days. To now claim that you accept that we are a 2 TE offense, but that 2 TEs is enough seems ludicrous to me. As a primarily 2 WR offense, would you feel good with 2 passable WRs? What happens WHEN someone gets hurt?

As for what you think you know that Harbaugh knows, he probably also knows that he installed a very limited version of his offense last year with no offseason to make the players feel comfortable, and he won 14 games doing it his way. If you think he is going to scrap his philosophy for fear of the big boys at the NFL level, I think you know less about Harbaugh's make-up than you think you do. He has always used his TEs as the bell-cows in the passing game, using the WRs as big play options outside, to keep the middle of the field, where he knows the easiest throws are, wide open. His TEs generally get more passes thrown, and significantly more targets in the red zone and thrid downs. I think he absolutely could change his approach, but we have seen no evidence to suggest that he will.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
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.
Good response. I disagree mostly, but good response.

1. You are correct, I am guessing when it comes to Kilgore. No one really knows what this kid can do but the coaching staff. But it was clear that JH was grooming this kid to start at some point (along with Beeler). So, giving JH's developmental abilities the benefit of the doubt I have to expect - guess - that this is the year Kilgore or Person (or both) gets a chance to showcase that development. In my opinion, to draft G in the 1st - not that I'm against it - would indicate that Kilgore and Person aren't ready. We will see come draft day. But I think Kilgore (and perhaps Beeler) may surprise some people this year.

2. Here's were I have a fundamental difference with you (and most here in The Zone) when it comes to this "BPA" thing. My personal belief is that fans here in The Zone (not all) are over emphasizing the "BPA" and "reaching" in order to justify drafting an unneeded TE in the 1st. If I didn't know better I'd say the 49ers had no TE's at all. So, what is your definition of "reaching"? Hill is in the Calvin Johnson mold with very similar measurables. Was he a "reach" when Detroit picked him 2nd overall? Hill's game, like Johnson's coming out of the same school and running a similar offense, translates beautifully with the NFL. So I don't think Hill is a "reach" for any team in the 1st round. None of us are in the war rooms of NFL team so none of really know if a player was BPA or a player of need high on their board, that is unless they let it be known. Outside of that, we're all taking educated guesses (unless we have some relationship with someone on the coaching staff). And based on what I've observed of previous drafts (been watching them for 20+ years now) almost always, unless it's a QB, teams use that first rounder for a guy who they feel can come in and start right away or by year two. Just because a team picks for need in the first don't mean they are reaching. A team can - and often do - trade out of the 1st if they feel the talent available is a "reach" (whatever you think it means) or otherwise not worth of drafting there.


3. You kind of make my point about NFL team's war room and their big board. No one knew that Aldon was rated that high on the 49ers board until they drafted him. But like you said, you really don't know until you get these players on an NFL field with NFL talent. And, with all their evaluation, tests, and interviews, not even the coaches can get around that. (I can attest to that in my own job.) Which is why "BPA" in the 1st isn't wise for this team. We ave at least two positions we can fill in the 1st, and neither would be a "reach" to fill it.

Funny thing is, I think we're both saying the same thing, just a little differently. Btw, I love Hill and don't think he's a reach at all...it's my opinion that in the right system, he could be just as effective if not more than higher ranked WRs like Blackmon and Floyd. Now, he won't be taken before those guys, but I believe teams will regret passing on him. So to my point, I think we agree more than we disagree.
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Funny thing is, I think we're both saying the same thing, just a little differently. Btw, I love Hill and don't think he's a reach at all...it's my opinion that in the right system, he could be just as effective if not more than higher ranked WRs like Blackmon and Floyd. Now, he won't be taken before those guys, but I believe teams will regret passing on him. So to my point, I think we agree more than we disagree.
Correct. Personally, I think Hill is better than Floyd, but that's one man's opinion. Had he played at a school like Alabama, Florida, USC, or LSU the debate would be who's better between Hill and Blackmon. And this is why his stock shot up after the combine. Picking Hill in the 1st is a "reach" only if he's picked before Blackmon. But, again, thats just one man's opinion.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by martysofresh:
this lol. FS in the 2nd tho? big no no. OG and WR(in that order) are the biggest priorities at the moment then CB and depth at positions on D. ONce we get that RG position filled, i think everything else can all into to place. Bill Walsh philosophy.
Yeah, FS in the 2nd. Goldson will be hard to replace, otherwise we would have let him hit the market. Not all positions can be replaced with a bargain. And we can't assume that Goldson won't want to break the bank like he wants this year. We won't franchise him 2 years in a row. So we have to think about the future at that position. Iloka is regarded as the best FS and slated to go late 2nd, early 3rd - right in our wheel house. He can sit and learn a year and be ready for the 2014 season. I think people are sleeping on the young talent already on the roster, namely Daniel Kilgore and Mike Person. These guys were meant to be developed, especially Kilgore. And from what I can tell Kilgore's development is coming along quite well. To draft G in the first JH will be saying that Kilgore is a failure already, which questions his developmental abilities. So, unless that guy is just a no-brainer - which I don't see at pick 30 for G - I don't see that happening. Ryan Miller in the 5th will be good value. He can come in and at least push Kilgore to get the best out of him. I predict that Kilgore is going to impress in training camp.

Hmm I'm seeing your logic. Ive kinda changed my prioritizing since that last post. I was thinking more along the lines of getting a guy like Konz or Zietler with that first pick since they could start from day 1 be play C eventually but if Kilgore is going to take over RG this season and eventually slide over to C, than I'd rather just pick up a guy like Brandon Brooks In the 4th. I'm not gonna pretend that I know anything about Kilgore and Person, I don't lol. I hopped off the Fleenerbandwagon a while ago but that pro day is making it hard for me not to wanna hop back on. I'm really lost on what I want to see happen with that first pick. But I kno I want Quick in the 2nd and Turbin in the 3rd. I like the LB in the 4th. I hav us trading back for a 2nd and 3rd nd like to get him with the second 3rd round pick. I need to make a mock today
Hill won't be on the board at #30. I think Fleener's the pick there. The argument we don't need another TE is balanced by the fact Walker's in the last year of his contract and Harbaugh just won't pass up an opportunity to take such a unique TE who could really help end the 3rd down conversion and RZ issues his offense had last season. Some are discounting Moss, which I think is a big mistake. He's a hungry player and still runs a 4.4 X 40 so I think he'll be ready "to get fans out of their seats" as he so aptly put it. Agree we need a S to b/u Goldson and Whitner, but instead of getting one in the 2nd rd, I'd expect them to either go top RB or OG there. Have to remember Culliver can also play S. It's also possible Reggie Smith will re-sign if he learns the hard lesson Goldson did last year. Back to the 2nd pick, would absolutely love Doug Martin, even if Baalke needs to trade up to get him. Turbin's a solid pick, but would rather have Martin, who's very good at every phase of the game, plus he can return kicks. I like the Lewis pick...we need some LB depth.
Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
Hill won't be on the board at #30. I think Fleener's the pick there. The argument we don't need another TE is balanced by the fact Walker's in the last year of his contract and Harbaugh just won't pass up an opportunity to take such a unique TE who could really help end the 3rd down conversion and RZ issues his offense had last season. Some are discounting Moss, which I think is a big mistake. He's a hungry player and still runs a 4.4 X 40 so I think he'll be ready "to get fans out of their seats" as he so aptly put it. Agree we need a S to b/u Goldson and Whitner, but instead of getting one in the 2nd rd, I'd expect them to either go top RB or OG there. Have to remember Culliver can also play S. It's also possible Reggie Smith will re-sign if he learns the hard lesson Goldson did last year. Back to the 2nd pick, would absolutely love Doug Martin, even if Baalke needs to trade up to get him. Turbin's a solid pick, but would rather have Martin, who's very good at every phase of the game, plus he can return kicks. I like the Lewis pick...we need some LB depth.
1st. If the argument for picking Fleener in the 1st is to replace Davis, because Davis is in his final year of his contract, then that can be achieved in the 2nd - 4th rounds. Dwayne Allen, Orson Charles, Ladarius Green, and Michael Egnew all would come and and quit effectively replace Davis - if thats REALLY the argument. If the 3rd down/redzone issue is the argument then, again, there are TE's in the 2nd-4th rounds who we can get to achieve that. My issue is drafting a guy in the 1st who has no chance to start. Sure, we used (and will use) a lot of two TE's sets, in various ways. Say we use 2 TE sets 40%, or even 50%, of the time - which is high even for the 49ers - that means our 1st rounder won't be on the field 50%-60% of the time. That just can't be for our 1st rounder. My point is that all the reasons given to take a TE in the 1st can be just as effectively achieved by selecting a TE in the 2nd-4th. I don't think it's necessary to burn our 1st rounder to achieve something we could achieve as late as the 4th.

2nd. Its still an open question if Moss will make the team. Just because he's hungry and runs a 4.4 don't mean he'll make the 53. He still going to ba asked to do things in this offense - consistantly - he's never been asked to do. He's gonna have to demonstrate selflessness; there are gonna be times in this offense he may only get one or two pass thrown his way but be asked to block and be a decoy most of the game, for example. Trust me, he isn't here to just run "go"routes all game.

3rd. We might not take a S in the 2nd, but I think it's a gamble. If the team had any confidence at all that Reggie Smith could halfway replace Goldson they would have allowed Goldson to hit the open maket. The fact is that Goldson is way too important to this defense and cannot be easily replaced. We just can't plug anybody there. Thats why he was franchised. And thats why I think we need to draft, and groom, for his probable/possible replacement it he wants Ft. Knox next season.

I agree we need to get some depth at LB in the draft. I like Turbin over Martin. We need a bruiser-back. Plus, Ginn resigned, and if I'm not mistaken Cox has return abilities. But I agree, we need to get a RB as well.
Originally posted by martysofresh:
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Originally posted by martysofresh:
this lol. FS in the 2nd tho? big no no. OG and WR(in that order) are the biggest priorities at the moment then CB and depth at positions on D. ONce we get that RG position filled, i think everything else can all into to place. Bill Walsh philosophy.
Yeah, FS in the 2nd. Goldson will be hard to replace, otherwise we would have let him hit the market. Not all positions can be replaced with a bargain. And we can't assume that Goldson won't want to break the bank like he wants this year. We won't franchise him 2 years in a row. So we have to think about the future at that position. Iloka is regarded as the best FS and slated to go late 2nd, early 3rd - right in our wheel house. He can sit and learn a year and be ready for the 2014 season. I think people are sleeping on the young talent already on the roster, namely Daniel Kilgore and Mike Person. These guys were meant to be developed, especially Kilgore. And from what I can tell Kilgore's development is coming along quite well. To draft G in the first JH will be saying that Kilgore is a failure already, which questions his developmental abilities. So, unless that guy is just a no-brainer - which I don't see at pick 30 for G - I don't see that happening. Ryan Miller in the 5th will be good value. He can come in and at least push Kilgore to get the best out of him. I predict that Kilgore is going to impress in training camp.

Hmm I'm seeing your logic. Ive kinda changed my prioritizing since that last post. I was thinking more along the lines of getting a guy like Konz or Zietler with that first pick since they could start from day 1 be play C eventually but if Kilgore is going to take over RG this season and eventually slide over to C, than I'd rather just pick up a guy like Brandon Brooks In the 4th. I'm not gonna pretend that I know anything about Kilgore and Person, I don't lol. I hopped off the Fleenerbandwagon a while ago but that pro day is making it hard for me not to wanna hop back on. I'm really lost on what I want to see happen with that first pick. But I kno I want Quick in the 2nd and Turbin in the 3rd. I like the LB in the 4th. I hav us trading back for a 2nd and 3rd nd like to get him with the second 3rd round pick. I need to make a mock today
None of us know anything about Kilgore. But we do know we moved up to draft him, and he's been developing since then. And if we trust the wisdom of Baalke and JH - like I do - then we have to see Kilgore as a real option to start at G. Keep in mind that we basically let Snyder walk uncontested. I really feel that if the coaching staff didn't feel that Kilgore was ready then they would have made a better effort to maintain Snyder. Now, what we do in the draft will tell us exactly how our coaching staff see our RG situation. If we go G early (1st-2nd) then its reasonable to conclude that Kilgore's development hasn't gone well. If we get one mid to late rounds then we can reasonably conclude that they feel Kilgore's the guy.