There are 118 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?

Originally posted by natrone06:
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.

Ah, you're right about that. Technically most of the moves that happened in the draft can be read in different ways and are consistent with many different scenarios. My read is that they had no interest in Ertz, but reasonable minds could differ.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 11,510
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by natrone06:
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.

Ah, you're right about that. Technically most of the moves that happened in the draft can be read in different ways and are consistent with many different scenarios. My read is that they had no interest in Ertz, but reasonable minds could differ.

Apparently, the thrust of my post has been discussed, but since I took the time to write it up. I am going to post it anyway.

In a news conference after the 1st day of the draft, Baalke indicated that in "typical drafts there's probably a larger pool of what you would consider marquee players. But at the same time, we felt there was a very big group, large group, of that next-level of player. And any time you get that, you're going to have teams that are able to address need, probably more so than best player available because in a draft like this, the players available are very close to one another. So, you're going to address need in those situations and I think that's what a lot of teams did, us included."

In the first round, the 49er traded up to drafted the best player available that filled the most obvious need the team had. Given what Baalke said, the team drafted based upon the confluence of need and quality of player on the board. We can logically infer that the selection of Reid means that Reid was at least the second highest safety on the 49ers board. But, we cannot logically assume that selection of Reid means that 49ers had no interest in drafting Date Jones, Sharrif Floyd, or Bjoern Werner, or any defense end chosen between pick 18 and our selection of Tank Carradine.

Again, using the logic of Baalke's description of this particular draft, we can assume that Carradine was the highest rated defensive end of the 49ers board when we picked him at #40. Trading down from pick #34 to pick #40, does not automatically mean that we had no interest in drafting any of the players on the board at the time of that trade.

The team clearly had an interest in drafting Carradine, but it may also have had an interest in drafting Justin Hunter and Zack Ertz. We do not know. SF may have felt reasonably sure that one of the players that it wanted at #34 would be there at #40. If the team did not feel that there were enough players of approximately equal quality that met a team need to risk the trade, we probably would not have traded down.

The draft itself does not give us a foundation to assume that Hunter or Ertz were not on the team's draft board, nor does the draft provide us with a foundation for assuming that they were on our draft board. Vance McDonald may have been the second highest tight end on the 49er draft board. We just do not know.

In the same interview, Baalke pointed out, "Everybody has their own board and they work off their own board. No two teams are alike and that's what makes the draft so much fun." Baalke, I am sure was talking about the other NFL teams when he said everybody, but the point is also applicable to this forum.

We each have our own "draft boards" and that is what makes the forum so much fun. But, we should not confuse our personal draft board with the 49ers draft board, and as Baalke indicated the team works off its board. What we think, is not necessarily what the 49ers think.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2013/04/25/baalke-transcript-reid-played-the-type-of-ball-we-wanted-to-see-out-of-a-safety/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29



[ Edited by buck on May 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM ]
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by natrone06:
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.

Ah, you're right about that. Technically most of the moves that happened in the draft can be read in different ways and are consistent with many different scenarios. My read is that they had no interest in Ertz, but reasonable minds could differ.

Apparently, the thrust of my post has been discussed, but since I took the time to write it up. I am going to post it anyway.

In a news conference after the 1st day of the draft, Baalke indicated that in "typical drafts there's probably a larger pool of what you would consider marquee players. But at the same time, we felt there was a very big group, large group, of that next-level of player. And any time you get that, you're going to have teams that are able to address need, probably more so than best player available because in a draft like this, the players available are very close to one another. So, you're going to address need in those situations and I think that's what a lot of teams did, us included."

In the first round, the 49er traded up to drafted the best player available that filled the most obvious need the team had. Given what Baalke said, the team drafted based upon the confluence of need and quality of player on the board. We can logically infer that the selection of Reid means that Reid was at least the second highest safety on the 49ers board. But, we cannot logically assume that selection of Reid means that 49ers had no interest in drafting Date Jones, Sharrif Floyd, or Bjoern Werner, or any defense end chosen between pick 18 and our selection of Tank Carradine.

Again, using the logic of Baalke's description of this particular draft, we can assume that Carradine was the highest rated defensive end of the 49ers board when we picked him at #40. Trading down from pick #34 to pick #40, does not automatically mean that we had no interest in drafting any of the players on the board at the time of that trade.

The team clearly had an interest in drafting Carradine, but it may also have had an interest in drafting Justin Hunter and Zack Ertz. We do not know. SF may have felt reasonably sure that one of the players that it wanted at #34 would be there at #40. If the team did not feel that there were enough players of approximately equal quality that met a team need to risk the trade, we probably would not have traded down.

The draft itself does not give us a foundation to assume that Hunter or Ertz were not on the team's draft board, nor does the draft provide us with a foundation for assuming that they were on our draft board. Vance McDonald may have been the second highest tight end on the 49er draft board. We just do not know.

In the same interview, Baalke pointed out, "Everybody has their own board and they work off their own board. No two teams are alike and that's what makes the draft so much fun." Baalke, I am sure was talking about the other NFL teams when he said everybody, but the point is also applicable to this forum.

We each have our own "draft boards" and that is what makes the forum so much fun. But, we should not confuse our personal draft board with the 49ers draft board, and as Baalke indicated the team works off its board. What we think, is not necessarily what the 49ers think.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/49ers/2013/04/25/baalke-transcript-reid-played-the-type-of-ball-we-wanted-to-see-out-of-a-safety/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+49ersHotRead+%2849ers+Hot+Read%29

Yep. All true. The fact is, the actual draft plays out one way. One way out of millions of possible ways. There's not a whole lot we can definitively know based on what we observed.

My conclusion that we had no interest in Ertz involves adding a lot of assumptions and my own opinions into my objective observations and Baalke's comments. I actually watched that whole press conference on 49ers.com. Found it really interesting.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 11,510
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:

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).

Are you still claiming that the 49ers proved your point so emphatically?
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:

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).

Are you still claiming that the 49ers proved your point so emphatically?

Not definitively. But I think that's the most likely interpretation.
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
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.

And we've all been mucking it up.

If that's the question, there's only one of two logical answers:

1) Baalke was talking about Cyprien.

2) Baalke was lying.
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
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.

And we've all been mucking it up.

If that's the question, there's only one of two logical answers:

1) Baalke was talking about Cyprien.

2) Baalke was lying.

Disagree. I don't think the 49ers had any intention of starting the draft with two safeties. I think he was talking about a player he was going to take at #34 that he knew the Jaguars were extremely unlikely to draft (pretty much every news outlet knew or at least speculated the Jags were going QB or DB).

Your inference seems to be based on an assumption that the trade-down is conclusive evidence that the Jags took the player Baalke was planning to take. I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I think the player they were "absolutely" going to take at #34 was Carradine. Baalke went on to say that they absolutely knew who they were going to take if they stayed there, but he added that he would be taking trade calls. I believe that getting a 7th and 2014 3rd was too much value to turn down, no matter how much better they liked Tank than the rest of the available players.
[ Edited by LieutKaffee on May 6, 2013 at 7:47 PM ]
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Originally posted by LieutKaffee:
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.

And we've all been mucking it up.

If that's the question, there's only one of two logical answers:

1) Baalke was talking about Cyprien.

2) Baalke was lying.

Disagree. I don't think the 49ers had any intention of starting the draft with two safeties. I think he was talking about a player he was going to take at #34 that he knew the Jaguars were extremely unlikely to draft (pretty much every news outlet knew or at least speculated the Jags were going QB or DB).

Your inference seems to be based on an assumption that the trade-down is conclusive evidence that the Jags took the player Baalke was planning to take. I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I think the player they were "absolutely" going to take at #34 was Carradine. Baalke went on to say that they absolutely knew who they were going to take if they stayed there, but he added that he would be taking trade calls. I believe that getting a 7th and 2014 3rd was too much value to turn down, no matter how much better they liked Tank than the rest of the available players.

Yeah, which is why I said it was one of two options (meaning it doesn't have to be the first one).

I think Baalke meaning Carradine when he said they knew who they would take if they stayed there is unlikely for two reasons:

1) We already know that if Baalke has "his guy" he moves up to get him, which is a strong indication that if "his guy" is there he's not going to move back and hope he's still there.

More importantly:

2) We know from Baalke's own lips that they traded back with several possible players in mind.
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Yeah, which is why I said it was one of two options (meaning it doesn't have to be the first one).

I think Baalke meaning Carradine when he said they knew who they would take if they stayed there is unlikely for two reasons:

1) We already know that if Baalke has "his guy" he moves up to get him, which is a strong indication that if "his guy" is there he's not going to move back and hope he's still there.

More importantly:

2) We know from Baalke's own lips that they traded back with several possible players in mind.

That's not inconsistent with Carradine being the guy he would have taken if there were not enticing trade-down offers.
Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
Who cares? It's over.

It is such a long time till camp...can't we linger for a while? LOL!

Why? The Niners made a great pick and got two additional picks in return. If they f**ked it up, then we should debate what could have been.

Until there is something else to talk about folks will continue to mull over the draft. It can be fun to argue various aspects and picks...but certainly not necessary. Just a way to pass the time. To me, it's not a big deal--don't think I'm better than Baalke or any other NFL expert. Some evidently think they are better...live and let live. But it is clearly your right to disagree! I've no problem with that.
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Until there is something else to talk about folks will continue to mull over the draft. It can be fun to argue various aspects and picks...but certainly not necessary. Just a way to pass the time. To me, it's not a big deal--don't think I'm better than Baalke or any other NFL expert. Some evidently think they are better...live and let live. But it is clearly your right to disagree! I've no problem with that.

Damn you and your polite, agreeable self!



I think Baalke would have thought long and hard about taking Cyprien if he was there.

Whitner is gone next year, so it would have made sense. Carradine isn't a 2013 starter either