Evolve don't Revolve

Originally posted by NCommand:
And THIS is why you draft that 6'7" playmaking TE in "our" offense. In our offense this TE's (pick and/or VD) can line up at the LOS, in the backfield in the Q or even out wide as a WR. With two dynamic TE's the options are limitless.

And let's be honest here...we're not going to a spread offense anytime soon. Boldin will eat up a lot of passes Walker would have gotten this year and Crabtree will always get his. And let's not forget in our offense, Gore/James/Hunter will be huge factors in getting the ball. We're nowhere close to a traditional (Falcons-style) offense where we have two or three dominant WR's. We'll have one or two dominant WR's with a dominant TE (or two) and a dominant run game.

So in short, I think our TE pick (and the development of Jenkins/Manningham/Williams in the slot) IS our WR pick this year. And don't forget about FA...we've picked up key players in FA such as Manningham, Boldin, Lockette, Moore, etc. easily over the past two years. We are a team FA's want to play for now!

PS: I think the FO believed they should not have passed on Fleener last year, IMHO, esp. since Walker left recently. I don't think they'll make that same "mistake" (for lack of a better term) this year!

Once again, not saying your points are not valid. No doubt Boldin would eat up some of the passes for Delanie, but not all. Cos if you think about it from a headcount standpoint, he is only replacing Randy Moss. I am fine with the slot, but more importantly we just don't have that legit deep threat wideout that we badly need. Randy Moss was supposed to be that guy, but unfortunately he never quite lived up to it. Besdies, I took 2 more factors into considerations :

1) Other teams have added onto their already explosive offense as well such as the Falcons with Steven Jackson, Seahawks with Percy Harvin for example which could mean our O might have to work even harder to keep up with the scoring

2) What if we suffer injuries again ? Last year we had 2 guys going down.

Well, ultimately the core of my rationale is build upon the following :

• We must "win now" given current star nucleus aging
• "Defense doesn't win championships" anymore

-----> That all points to placing a slight emphasis on the offensive side of the ball to ensure Kaep has ALL the weapons to get it done. When you have an extreme goal like that, namely "to win the Super Bowl NOW", it will have certain implications in the way we approach the draft. It could demand a slightly more tactical as opposed to strategic approach to answer to such a specific objective.

I understand common sense says fix the defense to field a more balanced roster. I am not disputing that. But, to win the Super Bowl, there are arguably different ways of going about it. You have to ask yourself, is by focusing the draft on your D the BEST solution for this challenge ? Personally, I would argue not. I just believe we need to further build our offense to a point whereby it can overwhelm and dominate our opponents. A couple more weapons could just make that difference. Afterall, I am not saying not to draft on the defensive side of the ball at all. But, does it really have to be a top pick for a DE when all we are doing is adding depth behind Justin Smith ? Whereas for the O, we are in fact drafting to fill actual voids left by Delanie and Moss.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. All I am doing is trying to offer my formula in what I believe will give us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. Do I think Baalke and Harbaugh will be that bold and single-minded in 100% honing in for a Super Bowl win by going all out in drafting on the offensive side of the ball with the top 2 picks ? May be not. I have written enough on the subject already. Different people will have a different point of view, if you are still not sold on my rationale, I guess you will never be. Let's just say I respectfully agree to disagree.

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:

screw drafting offense

we need to keep our front 7 in tact for years to come, i dont want to score 45 points a game while giving up 45 points a game

Agree, defense wins championships

Originally posted by Wheelz29:

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
screw drafting offense

we need to keep our front 7 in tact for years to come, i dont want to score 45 points a game while giving up 45 points a game

Agree, defense wins championships

Hey guys, the old adage of "defense wins championships" is really ancient history, this is not how the game is played these days. There you go, is time to move with the times, hope it helps :

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/sports/football/defense-once-won-nfl-titles-but-no-longer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/16903/era-of-defense-wins-championships-is-over

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1244200-has-the-phrase-defense-wins-championships-become-obsolete

Originally posted by Rascal:
Once again, not saying your points are not valid. No doubt Boldin would eat up some of the passes for Delanie, but not all. Cos if you think about it from a headcount standpoint, he is only replacing Randy Moss. I am fine with the slot, but more importantly we just don't have that legit deep threat wideout that we badly need. Randy Moss was supposed to be that guy, but unfortunately he never quite lived up to it. Besdies, I took 2 more factors into considerations :
Randy never lived up to it, that is why I don't expect to a rookie wr to do much either, given his lack of knowledge. The GOAT got what? 50-60 passes and that was playing full time in his rookie year.
1) Other teams have added onto their already explosive offense as well such as the Falcons with Steven Jackson, Seahawks with Percy Harvin for example which could mean our O might have to work even harder to keep up with the scoring
Which is why we should make sure our defense can match up well so that our offense can keep up. If they score more and you don't get the ball back to the O...
2) What if we suffer injuries again ? Last year we had 2 guys going down.
Which is why we didn't suffer as much as others that are wr dependent like other teams when ours went down.
Well, ultimately the core of my rationale is build upon the following :

• We must "win now" given current star nucleus aging

Yes, I agree, that we must win now, thats why I think you get the players who will impact your team week in and week out and not once in a whhile.

• "Defense doesn't win championships" anymore

You can't win with D alone, but neither can you do it with O alone. If you truly look at the winners. The packers and saints did it once, and once they took the league by surprise, they haven't been back. The Packers were beat by teams that had good O and good D, but they had no D, if they did they would have won more, same as the Saints, they have been beaten by teams with good and better D. The Patriots won when their D was good, when they suffered injuries and the last yfew years when they had none because they failed to restock the D with capable players, they have not won it.
-----> That all points to placing a slight emphasis on the offensive side of the ball to ensure Kaep has ALL the weapons to get it done. When you have an extreme goal like that, namely "to win the Super Bowl NOW", it will have certain implications in the way we approach the draft. It could demand a slightly more tactical as opposed to strategic approach to answer to such a specific objective.
What good does it do to stock one side of the fence if you are not going to or hardly going to use the player. Not saying to ignore the O-just right now, I see TE a bigger impact than wr and Safety and DL as bigger impact in the first three picks for the team. Especially since the talent is there this year. The other thing others are forgetting, even if you are just voicing your opinion and wishes, is that the niners are not going to pass a lot like the packers, saints, patriots or even the falcons. Think about it for a minute, how do you beat those teams or how did we beat those teams, we played keep away, the less they get the ball the more the longer they take to get in sync or have opps. You do what others don't because they don't see it much. Like the read option, pistol and jumbo.
I understand common sense says fix the defense to field a more balanced roster. I am not disputing that. But, to win the Super Bowl, there are arguably different ways of going about it. You have to ask yourself, is by focusing the draft on your D the BEST solution for this challenge ? Personally, I would argue not. I just believe we need to further build our offense to a point whereby it can overwhelm and dominate our opponents. A couple more weapons could just make that difference. Afterall, I am not saying not to draft on the defensive side of the ball at all. But, does it really have to be a top pick for a DE when all we are doing is adding depth behind Justin Smith ? Whereas for the O, we are in fact drafting to fill actual voids left by Delanie and Moss.
Manningham had the second spot, but now it belongs to Boldin, so Manningham will fill Mosses position at 3rd if not Williams. So that negates wr in the first three maybe four picks. Plus there is so much assumption that Jenkins will not come around or that a replacement receiver picked with the first pick will. History shows that (including the niners), that wr taken in the latter half of the first round have not been the best. It took crab all this time to come around and he was a top pick 10 pick. Plus according to the so called experts, this years wr class are not the best C+ grade. Don't mistake being forcast to be taken in the first round or second round meaning the same as truly worth being a first round selection. As for TE, I can agree we need but not with the first pick. Here is another mistake people make that we are going to select a wr type of TE. Walker was a utility knife, although a bad receiver IMO. So the TE is going to have to block and catch. If he is one dimensional, teams are going to smell pass and play it such. So that is why I don't think the top 2-3 TE's being mention are who the niners are targeting. I think that they may however pick one higher than we think. The pick within the first three anyway, Kelce.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. All I am doing is trying to offer my formula in what I believe will give us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. Do I think Baalke and Harbaugh will be that bold and single-minded in 100% honing in for a Super Bowl win by going all out in drafting on the offensive side of the ball with the top 2 picks ? May be not. I have written enough on the subject already. Different people will have a different point of view, if you are still not sold on my rationale, I guess you will never be. Let's just say I respectfully agree to disagree.
They are 100% single minded in winning the SB, just not your philosophy in trying to emulate the packer and the saints.

Peace

Originally posted by WildBill:
Peace

Hey WildBill, did you actually read the articles ? Just a couple of things to note, 1) I didn't write them and 2) if Bruce Arians said "those days are gone", I am sure it has some weight to it.

Look, like I said before, I didn't say don't draft on the defensive side of the ball, is just a matter of using the slightly lower picks that's all. At the end of the day, I can bet you any money that Baalke and Harbaugh will be drafting players for both sides of the ball anyway. The only question is whether you like their picks or not that's all. I am quite sure they should have a TE and a WR in there somewhere.

Originally posted by Rascal:
Once again, not saying your points are not valid. No doubt Boldin would eat up some of the passes for Delanie, but not all. Cos if you think about it from a headcount standpoint, he is only replacing Randy Moss. I am fine with the slot, but more importantly we just don't have that legit deep threat wideout that we badly need. Randy Moss was supposed to be that guy, but unfortunately he never quite lived up to it. Besdies, I took 2 more factors into considerations

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. All I am doing is trying to offer my formula in what I believe will give us the best chance to win the Super Bowl. Do I think Baalke and Harbaugh will be that bold and single-minded in 100% honing in for a Super Bowl win by going all out in drafting on the offensive side of the ball with the top 2 picks ? May be not. I have written enough on the subject already. Different people will have a different point of view, if you are still not sold on my rationale, I guess you will never be. Let's just say I respectfully agree to disagree.

I can see your rationale in this quite easily, and to be honest, going WR and catching everyone off guard is a Baalke-like move, no doubt. That said, the #2 TE is going to get 50% of the snaps or more this year. How much would this top WR get? Behind Boldin and Crabtree and VD and three accomplished slot receivers in Williams/Manningham/AJ (eventually)? As to FS being the #1 pick, that guy could end up taking every snap this year (win this year motto). We also are expected to see a heavier rotation at DE this year. Another win-now guy could be a starting two-gap NT moving Dorsey to DE and DT in 4-man fronts.

So to me, our first picks should be TE (our WR pick), FS, DE or NT in any order. Then you look at a developmental WR/P-KR, CB, OT, C, etc.

As to your bolded point, you're right...we don't have the deep threat on the outside (we have that with VD on the inside instead). Crabtree has never been a deep threat. He's a possession WR. Boldin has a history of being a solid deep threat though but will need time to build chemistry with CK. The X-factor in this is Roman. We HAD Moss, Manningham, AJ is a burner and even Ginn runs a 4.2. We had plenty of speed but quite literally, never used it. Almost all of our big plays were by design under both QB's and resulted in a ton of RAC.

Anyway, like I said, most are thinking defense (FS or NT/DE) and TE with the top picks BUT Baalke could align with your rationale as well and go WR and I don't think it would shock anyone at this juncture. LOL.

Good posts...appreciate the thoughts/write-up.

I'm more inclined to the taking the best player available approach, I think Eifert is that player in the vicinity of our first pick anyways. I think the strength of the draft is d-line, that's why I'm hoping we go offense early, and maybe d-line at #34.

Originally posted by Rascal:
Hey WildBill, did you actually read the articles ? Just a couple of things to note, 1) I didn't write them and 2) if Bruce Arians said "those days are gone", I am sure it has some weight to it.

I read the articles. I am not sure whether the point your raising--defenses no longer win championships--is correct or not.

But, those articles do not by any stretch of the imagination prove that your perspective is correct. Again, it might be, I do not know.

The New York Times article was written before SF played New Orleans in the play-offs two years ago. It downplayed the chances of the SF 49ers and the New York Giants to advance in the play-offs because those were the two teams that relied on their defenses. It lauded the offenses of Green Bay, New England and New Orleans.

SF beat New Orleans, New York beat Green Bay, and then beat New England. The article proved incorrect; the championship was played by the article's "defensive teams."

The ESPN article was written prior to last year's Super Bowl which played by the two teams with dominating defenses. Unfortunately, as we know SF lost primarily of injuries to the defense and special teams, and offensive breakdown. Without those injuries, SF probably wins the game.

But, again, not sure the article proves your point. In the end, the Raven's defense won the game with a goal line stand.

The Bleacher Report article seems to talk as much about the regular season as much as the play-offs. Nor does it account for the fact that its two old-school teams, the SF 49ers and Baltimore Ravens were the two teams that made it to the Super Bowl.

The authors of those articles do favor your perspective, but the we still need to see if that point of view proves correct.

edit: By the way, I also think that we need to draft a tight end and wide receiver. I disagree with those that argue that we must take defense first.
I think it depends of the players available when we pick.

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Wheelz29:

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
screw drafting offense

we need to keep our front 7 in tact for years to come, i dont want to score 45 points a game while giving up 45 points a game

Agree, defense wins championships

Hey guys, the old adage of "defense wins championships" is really ancient history, this is not how the game is played these days. There you go, is time to move with the times, hope it helps :

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/sports/football/defense-once-won-nfl-titles-but-no-longer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/16903/era-of-defense-wins-championships-is-over

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1244200-has-the-phrase-defense-wins-championships-become-obsolete

Had our defense played at a championship level just 2 and a half months ago we'd be polishing up #6 in the trophy case.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Had our defense played at a championship level just 2 and a half months ago we'd be polishing up #6 in the trophy case.

There is no such thing anymore.

Instead, if our offense had not left us lagging with so many 3 and outs and down by 22 in the 1st half, we would be talking about "Quest for 7" now.

My biggest problem with taking Eifert is I'm not sure if I see a big difference in production as the 2nd tight end in our offense. I think a guy like Kelse would be just as productive. Personally I'm looking at the board and hoping we trade out for picks next year. I don't see Justin Smith's heir and there's just a heck of a lot of depth at NT and FS positions this year in the draft.

Cyprien and either Hankins, Williams, or Jenkins in the 2nd. One of those guys will fall to us. Hopefully we can land us another 1st rounder in the 2014 draft.

I think the thought behind this thread is pretty sensible, but I don't think we have to think in terms of one side of the ball, or the other. We don't have to knock one side of the ball or the other. We can meet the needs on both sides of the ball with the remaining picks we have. We are in a position to go BPA at 31 and 34 with FS, SS, DE, or NT. Those two picks should net us two future starters or depending how the draft falls, we could trade down and end up with another 2nd and third round pick, and possibly another 7th, and still end up getting great value. Considering the guys that I'd really want will be most likely gone (Tavon Austin, Datone Jones, Vacarro, etc), I'd say trade down and pick up the extra 2nd and 3rd. You can still get a solid NT prospect in Brandon Williams and pick up some of the other quality talent at WR and TE with the extra picks.

I will say that I am not in favor of trading any of our picks in the first three round for picks next year. We need to enter the draft with a load up now to win now while still adding players that will help secure the longterm success of the team. DE, NT, FS, SS, and TEs are musts. We also need to pick up a WR that has the potential to be a no. 1 or no.2 to prepare for the departure of Anquan Boldin/AJ Jenkins in case he doesn't pan our/or if Michael Crabtree's contract demands are too high. Fortunately we can get guys like Da'Rick Rogers, Keenan Allen, or Quinton Patton as insurance for any of the above scenarios.

Just hurry up N get here Mr draft seems to be taken u forever

Originally posted by Rascal:

There is no such thing anymore.

Saying that does not make it true. Assertions are not facts.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by Rascal:
Hey WildBill, did you actually read the articles ? Just a couple of things to note, 1) I didn't write them and 2) if Bruce Arians said "those days are gone", I am sure it has some weight to it.

I read the articles. I am not sure whether the point your raising--defenses no longer win championships--is correct or not.

But, those articles do not by any stretch of the imagination prove that your perspective is correct. Again, it might be, I do not know.

The New York Times article was written before SF played New Orleans in the play-offs two years ago. It downplayed the chances of the SF 49ers and the New York Giants to advance in the play-offs because those were the two teams that relied on their defenses. It lauded the offenses of Green Bay, New England and New Orleans.

SF beat New Orleans, New York beat Green Bay, and then beat New England. The article proved incorrect; the championship was played by the article's "defensive teams."

The ESPN article was written prior to last year's Super Bowl which played by the two teams with dominating defenses. Unfortunately, as we know SF lost primarily of injuries to the defense and special teams, and offensive breakdown. Without those injuries, SF probably wins the game.

But, again, not sure the article proves your point. In the end, the Raven's defense won the game with a goal line stand.

The Bleacher Report article seems to talk as much about the regular season as much as the play-offs. Nor does it account for the fact that its two old-school teams, the SF 49ers and Baltimore Ravens were the two teams that made it to the Super Bowl.

The authors of those articles do favor your perspective, but the we still need to see if that point of view proves correct.

edit: By the way, I also think that we need to draft a tight end and wide receiver. I disagree with those that argue that we must take defense first.
I think it depends of the players available when we pick.

Of course those articles weren't written about this last Super Bowl. But, you get the drift and where the trend has been heading. Forget about the authors for the moment, just take Bruce Arians' quote for it. Or take a look at this past postseason, 3 teams with top defenses all went down :

• - 9ers (3rd ranked Total D and 4th ranked Passing D)
• - Seahawks (4th ranked Total D and 6th ranked Passing D)
• - Broncos (2nd ranked Total D and 3rd ranked Passing D)

As you can see, even if you want to discount the 9ers because Justin Smith wasn't 100%, both the Broncos and Seahawks also went down. Need I say more ? Obviously, it tells you even though is great to have a stout D, it will only get you so far. To add, the Ravens didn't win the Super Bowl because of its D, it was 9ers' bad play-calling by Greg Roman which cost us the game. I don't care how good an opposing D is, if your O is not good enough to get the ball in from the 7 yard line with 4 goes, then there is something seriously wrong with your team !! Perhaps if we had an Anquan Boldin or a Justin Hunter things might have been different ? Perhaps. Oh, by the way, Ravens' D was ranked 17th in Total D just in case you didn't know. Or hey the Steelers' D was ranked 1st in Total D and Passing D and they didn't even get into the playoffs.

That should settle it right ?