There are 131 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Who would 49ers have picked if they stayed at #34?

Who would 49ers have picked if they stayed at #34?

Tank + 7th round pick + 3rd round pick the next year > Tank.

He probably felt Tank would still be there at #40 and couldn't resist the Titans offer. The teams picking between 34-40 didn't have great needs for him. If the Titans hadn't made that offer he still would've been the pick.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 30,911
Originally posted by 2Legit2Quit:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Between days 1 and 2 Baalke said they absolutely knew who they were going to pick if they kept #34.

This. LieutKaffe already broke it down nicely here:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Some of the analysis and speculation in this thread confuses me. The question is who would the 49ers have taken if they had stayed at #34. There are only six possible answers: Justin Hunter, Zach Ertz, Darius Slay, Giovani Bernard, Manti Te'o, Geno Smith, Tank Carradine. If Tank was their overnight favorite, their risk paid off and they got their guy. If it was one of the others, that means Tank was the backup plan.

We can cross off Bernard, Te'o, and Smith for pretty obvious reasons. I've long maintained the 49ers had zero-zip-nada interest in Ertz amid all the fanboying on the Zone, but that's only my personal gut feeling. Slay would make the most sense here (so I agree with the OP that it was Slay if it wasn't Carradine), but I think it's far more likely Carradine was in fact the target the whole time. Getting a 3rd in that trade was enormous. I think Baalke was willing to take the risk of losing Tank because (a) he's creaming his pants about all the high picks we have in 2014, and (b) he's smarter and better at mock drafts than we are, and was probably almost positive Tank would not get stolen.

The key point here is that Baalke said AFTER round 1 had ended that he "absolutely" knew who they would be picking at 34. So Xavier Rhodes is not a possibility as Baalke already knew he was off the board. It's possible Cyprien was the target, but in all likelihood he wasn't, so Baalke was most likely referring to Hunter, Ertz, Slay or Tank. My guess, like most else, is Slay or Tank or complete BS smokescreen.

LINK: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2013/04/baalke-expected-more-trading-in-the-first-round.html

"Here's the post-Round 1 press conference with Trent Baalke, who talks about Eric Reid and about how the trade with the Cowboys came about...

If there's no movement, do you know who you want tomorrow, right now? TB: 'Absolutely we know. But that doesn't mean that something can't happen over the night and you wake up tomorrow and the phone rings and somebody has a deal that you can't refuse and you trade back. Otherwise, we are prepared to make the pick.'"

Thank you for clearing things up, like I said, you guys need to re-read my first initial post and that I haven't read the articles, so my reply is nothing more then speculation.
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:

We can cross off Bernard, Te'o, and Smith for pretty obvious reasons. I've long maintained the 49ers had zero-zip-nada interest in Ertz amid all the fanboying on the Zone.

I had Zack Errtz in my final mock.

I had never seen the word fanboying before, but I had a suspicion that it was not a compliment.

So I looked it up. Here is what I found.
v. To stand, drool, or worship the object of their obsession.

That is pretty demeaning. I just do understand the need that some people have to insult those with whom they disagree.

Thanks a lot.

To put Ertz in your final mock does not rise to the level of fanboying. If you were fanboying for Ertz, you would know it. (see, e.g., Rascal + Justin Hunter).
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Yeah, but as fans, as this point we can basically parse through when Baalke is BSing. (e.g. the story about AJ's name being in the envelope since the night before, which nobody has ever believed for a second).

It was Bruce Irvin I'm certain of it
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,609
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
To put Ertz in your final mock does not rise to the level of fanboying. If you were fanboying for Ertz, you would know it. (see, e.g., Rascal + Justin Hunter).

I know I was not fanboying Ertz.

In fact, I do not remember anybody, even one person, who stood drooling and obsessively worshiping Ertz.

Your comment just seem to be both exaggerated (inaccurate) and needlessly demeaning. But, hey happens all the time in draft war room.

I wonder what Rascal thinks of your example.
Leon Sandcastle
Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:
Not a big deal here, but I suspect that you are projecting your dislike of Hunter over these months on this particular comment. I mean, you just described Randy Moss here.. who had a role on our team (with those aforementioned characteristics). So it would make sense for SF to have had interest in Hunter to replace that role. Anyway, guess it matters not, at this point.

Not even close. If anything Randy Moss did a smash-up job for the 49ers in terms of run-blocking this past season. He was outstanding in that regard. He's also never been a guy that you would refer to as a "body-catcher." Beyond them being the same height and being faster receivers, I don't see much else that Moss and Hunter have in common when it comes down to their actual play on the field.


When I talk about Justin Hunter, I talk about his actual game and abilities, you're referring to him being physically similar to Moss, those are two entirely different things. I said Hunter didn't fit because of his actual performance and his many deficiencies. I never saw him as being someone that the 49ers would actually draft.
[ Edited by Phoenix49ers on May 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM ]
Originally posted by shaneblonien:
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Yeah, but as fans, as this point we can basically parse through when Baalke is BSing. (e.g. the story about AJ's name being in the envelope since the night before, which nobody has ever believed for a second).

It was Bruce Irvin I'm certain of it

Me too.

It was one of the reasons why it was strange for announcers to say the Lemonier pick was a surprising one.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,609
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by Rascal:
If Tank was the target all along, then he certainly wasn't a "must get" target. That is evident in what they did in order to get Reid. While 18th was probably too high, they just weren't willing to take a chance, if they were they would have waited till 31st.

In all likehood, Hunter, Ertz and Slay just weren't on 49ers' board although their value were definitely there as proven by being picked at 34th, 35th and 36th respectively. But, like you said they were willing to take a chance.

But, more likely it was probably a combination of both including losing a target from 19th to 33rd when they expected the guy to be available at 34th.That could have been absolutely anyone on that list. If it was a CB it could have been Trufant or Rhodes. There were 3 DL there too, but I guess we will never know. Is just hard to imagine the 9ers didn't want anyone all the way from 19th until Tank at 40th.

Being picked at a spot, does not prove value. A draftee's value will be proven on the field.

The drafting of Hunter, Ertz, Slay at 34, 35, and 36, or for that matter of Reid at 18, does not prove their value.

If it proves anything, it proves a team thought they had value at those spots.

My sense is that you feel pick 18 was too high for the Reid pick.

Since the 49ers traded up to get up him at 18, I do not see any reason to feel that they felt 18 was too high.


I don't know what "value" you are talking about, of course we are referring to value in the context of the draft. If Hunter, Ertz and Slay didn't have value they wouldn't have been picked at those spots in line with what most experts had projected.

Whether Reid was too high at 18th was a point I was trying to make that Tank wasn't a "must get" target. You need to read the thread to know what we have been discussing here.

When a team drafts a player, it proves that a team thinks a player has value; it does not prove that a player has value.

Nobody suggested Tank was a "must get" target prior to your insertion of that straw man.

If the royal we thinks I did not read the thread, his highness is mistaken.
[ Edited by buck on May 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM ]
  • bret
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,133
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Some of the analysis and speculation in this thread confuses me. The question is who would the 49ers have taken if they had stayed at #34. There are only six possible answers: Justin Hunter, Zach Ertz, Darius Slay, Giovani Bernard, Manti Te'o, Geno Smith, Tank Carradine. If Tank was their overnight favorite, their risk paid off and they got their guy. If it was one of the others, that means Tank was the backup plan.

We can cross off Bernard, Te'o, and Smith for pretty obvious reasons. I've long maintained the 49ers had zero-zip-nada interest in Ertz amid all the fanboying on the Zone, but that's only my personal gut feeling. Slay would make the most sense here (so I agree with the OP that it was Slay if it wasn't Carradine), but I think it's far more likely Carradine was in fact the target the whole time. Getting a 3rd in that trade was enormous. I think Baalke was willing to take the risk of losing Tank because (a) he's creaming his pants about all the high picks we have in 2014, and (b) he's smarter and better at mock drafts than we are, and was probably almost positive Tank would not get stolen.

As for when we had CBs targeted based on Harbaugh's comment? I think the possibilities are nearly endless who he may have been referring to. I think the OP is incorrect to rule out the third round simply because we traded up for Lemonier. When the 3rd round began it's entirely possible the 49ers had Mathieu, Wreh-Wilson, McFadden, and/or Logan Ryan ranked ahead of Lemonier on their board. They may have traded up for Lemonier because he was the last player they had left with a 3rd round grade and didn't want to miss out.

BW Webb was the only CB drafted in the 4th round, and a lot of Zoners thought he would be a good fit. It's certainly possible the 49ers' board went 1. Webb, 2. Patton, 3. Lattimore as the round was progressing and they were left with options 2 and 3. Finally, Terry Hawthorne had previously been linked to the 49ers and he went just a few spots before we took Dial. And Dial in the 5th had a bit of a "reach" feel to it. I think it's possible or even likely they preferred Hawthorne in that spot.


If Tank was the target all along, then he certainly wasn't a "must get" target. That is evident in what they did in order to get Reid. While 18th was probably too high, they just weren't willing to take a chance, if they were they would have waited till 31st. In all likehood, Hunter, Ertz and Slay just weren't on 49ers' board although their value were definitely there as proven by being picked at 34th, 35th and 36th respectively. But, like you said they were willing to take a chnace.

But, more likely it was probably a combination of both including losing a target from 19th to 33rd when they expected the guy to be available at 34th.That could have been absolutely anyone on that list. If it was a CB it could have been Trufant or Rhodes. There were 3 DL there too, but I guess we will never know. Is just hard to imagine the 9ers didn't want anyone all the way from 19th until Tank at 40th.

I think we're talking about two different things. I just realized some in this thread are using the word "target" in direct reference to Baalke's "absolutely we know" comment (which was made after the 1st round concluded), and some are using it in a broader sense of what player the 49ers went into the draft hoping to take at #34 (or something slightly less broad, such as what player the 49ers were hoping would make it to #34 as the draft was progressing into the 20s, etc.).

Of course Tank wasn't the "target all along." It's not like Reid and Tank were the literal #1 and #2 on their internal draft board.

When I made my post about Tank being the target, I meant in reference to Baalke's comment. Tank was the "target" on day 2 in that he was the player they were prepared to draft at #34, and the player they were most hoping to draft at #40. And if it wasn't Tank, then by definition it was one of those other five names. The OP offered interesting speculation that may have been Slay because of Harbaugh's comment about missing out on CBs they had targeted.

But given Tank's superior overall talent and the given the 49ers' demonstrated willingness to take injury risks in this draft, and given that DL was a more immediate need, all signs point to Tank being higher on the 49ers' board than Slay. Which would mean the CB comment refers to someone other than Slay.

First of all, LieutKaffee, you've given the most thoughtful analysis I've seen on this thread.

But something neither you nor anyone else has mentioned is the possibility that Carradine AND McDonald were players in the pool of possibilities at 34, rather than just the 5 players actually taken ahead of Carradine at 40. Perhaps knowing there were a couple of players they were interested in still on the board made the offer of a 3rd next year "too good to refuse". And with DL being the bigger need, they went with Carradine. Then, having decided on Carradine at 40, the Niners were surprised to see McDonald still available close enough to the end of the round to throw away their idea of drafting a corner at 61 and instead trading up for McDonald. It's at least as plausible as anything else I've read, and it doesn't contradict any of the known statements of JH or TB.

I know many people on this board will say "no, it had to be Ertz", but the Niners said McDonald was at the top of the board at TE, and many other scouts have agreed that McDonald was no worse than the 2nd best TE in the draft, and at least one other team (I'm sorry I forget which one) said they planned to take him with their next pick after SF's. That would mean Caradine was their likely target at 34 had they kept the pick and perhaps 61 was where they planned to go CB (Mathieu?)
Originally posted by bret:
First of all, LieutKaffee, you've given the most thoughtful analysis I've seen on this thread.

But something neither you nor anyone else has mentioned is the possibility that Carradine AND McDonald were players in the pool of possibilities at 34, rather than just the 5 players actually taken ahead of Carradine at 40. Perhaps knowing there were a couple of players they were interested in still on the board made the offer of a 3rd next year "too good to refuse". And with DL being the bigger need, they went with Carradine. Then, having decided on Carradine at 40, the Niners were surprised to see McDonald still available close enough to the end of the round to throw away their idea of drafting a corner at 61 and instead trading up for McDonald. It's at least as plausible as anything else I've read, and it doesn't contradict any of the known statements of JH or TB.

I know many people on this board will say "no, it had to be Ertz", but the Niners said McDonald was at the top of the board at TE, and many other scouts have agreed that McDonald was no worse than the 2nd best TE in the draft, and at least one other team (I'm sorry I forget which one) said they planned to take him with their next pick after SF's. That would mean Caradine was their likely target at 34 had they kept the pick and perhaps 61 was where they planned to go CB (Mathieu?)

Great point. And you're right, I hadn't thought of it. I think it's absolutely clear McDonald was the #1 target to fill the TE need. And your theory provides a very logical explanation for the trade-up in late round 2. I think the 49ers had the Seahawks' number.

As far as I know, there was never a single indication the 49ers were interested in Ertz aside from everyone and their mother (from Zoners to national mockers) making the Stanford connection and sticking him in our mocks. I had a little gentlemen's bet on twitter with Mike Sando guaranteeing that the 49ers had zero interest in Ertz and wouldn't draft him under any scenario. I was pumped that they proved my point so emphatically by trading a pick just before he was sure to be drafted (Eagles had been reported interested for days).
Carradine.
Maybe the 49ers had 3 or 4 players including, Tank, Hunter, Ertz all ranked similarly which is why they traded down figuring one of them would drop to them.
Originally posted by natrone06:
Maybe the 49ers had 3 or 4 players including, Tank, Hunter, Ertz all ranked similarly which is why they traded down figuring one of them would drop to them.

The fact that they had a few players they were willing to take at 40 is self-evident from that fact that they made the trade. The exercise in this thread is to guess which player Baalke was referring to when he said they absolutely knew who they would pick if they stayed at 34.
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by natrone06:
Maybe the 49ers had 3 or 4 players including, Tank, Hunter, Ertz all ranked similarly which is why they traded down figuring one of them would drop to them.

The fact that they had a few players they were willing to take at 40 is self-evident from that fact that they made the trade. The exercise in this thread is to guess which player Baalke was referring to when he said they absolutely knew who they would pick if they stayed at 34.

Lol I understand that. I was posting in response to your previous post about how sure you were that 49ers weren't interested in Ertz. I'm not sure anything that happened it the draft (besides not drafting him ) proves that in any way.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home