There are 132 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Who will be a better NFL guard: DeCastro or Looney"?

Who will be a better NFL guard: DeCastro or Looney"?

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Obviously the answer is DeCastro since he is a 1st round pick and Looney is a mid round pick. The question should be...Who was a better value where they were selected?

You.....are correct, sir...

...and I like to see well-thought out responses.

...
DeCastro is a Steeler....Looney is a 49er....im picking LOOOOOOOONEY!!!!!
Originally posted by Jesu80ncleats:
Originally posted by PhillyNiner:
I of course think the odds are on DeCastro. But I would bet the gap is much more narrow than people here would have you believe. If Decastro was so fantastic why did he drop so far in the first, beyond that once he fell a good bit, if he was so much better wouldnt his college coach have made a bigger effort to move up and get him. I think that Harbaugh assigned a value on him based on knowing him so well and it was lower than a lot of the league. Maybe if he fell to us in the first round we take him..maybe our F.O. saw him as more of a second rounder... either way I would bet they think the gap between him and Looney is closer than this board does.
because hes a guard
Dont be an ass, The post clearly made the presumption that he would make out starting line up regardless of position.
Originally posted by susweel:
MD gave us a F for not trading up for DeCastro.

Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...

MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?

The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....

The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.

As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.

Cheers!
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...

MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?

The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....

The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.

As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.

Cheers!

I understand the team's perspective, even though I disagree with it. Only time will tell who is correct.

So far, I am pretty much dead on in my prediction that DeCastro would win this thread in a 60-40 ratio. At 66-34, right in the park.
I just pooped in a bucket
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...

MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?

The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....

The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.

As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.

Cheers!
Well stated.
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...

MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?

The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....

The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.

As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.

Cheers!

I understand the team's perspective, even though I disagree with it. Only time will tell who is correct.

So far, I am pretty much dead on in my prediction that DeCastro would win this thread in a 60-40 ratio. At 66-34, right in the park.

Nevermind, my mistake.
[ Edited by OKC49erFan on May 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM ]
Looney.
Who's a better quarterback, Andrew Luck or Jamarcus Russel?



Who's hotter, Jamie Maggio or Kim Coyle?



These are key questions we must ask ourselves..











JK, there is a possibility Looney can end up being better than Decastro, but Decastro was touted as the best guard in the draft for a reason, while Looney went in the 4th. Hell, I voted for Looney just because he's a niner and I'd love to think he'll somehow be better than Decastro, but the probability definitely isn't in our favor.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,137
Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
Originally posted by ads_2006:
Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Well done Buck. It appears MD is incorrect.

It's curious how DeCastro is only leading 64-36%. Either all the people voting for Looney are afraid to show their faces in here, or someone is stuffing the ballots....

or maybe MD is right....

Never said he couldn't be. But the fact is that the poll results don't match up with the posts in this thread. That's all I'm trying to say.

I am pretty sure that you can vote without posting. If that is true, there is no reason to expect the number of posts to match the number of votes.
Im probably in the minority here but im going to go with DeCastro
Well we will see won't we?

Let's see if DeCastro starts on day 1? Maybe Looney will too. How bad is the Steeler line? It needs a lot of help right?

I would almost rather not see a rookie start because it's a big learning curve. No matter what DeCastro did in College it's going to be tough as a rookie.

Also Looney was clocked at 4.9 before he got hurt, DeCastro at 5.4

The niners really like their guards to be mobile and fast. Even Baas ran a 5.0. 5.4 is slow.
I'm still picking DeCastro because he has more pedigree but Looney will be interesting to watch.
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Obviously the answer is DeCastro since he is a 1st round pick and Looney is a mid round pick. The question should be...Who was a better value where they were selected?

You.....are correct, sir...

...and I like to see well-thought out responses.

...

Tom Brady and the San Diego Chargers staff members who picked Ryan Leaf dislike this.