Trade up and get Sammy Watkins??

Originally posted by T-9ers:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by T-9ers:
i thinking the mortaging your future thing is a little over dramatic. history shows that the lower you go in the draft, the less chance you have a getting quality players. ofcourse that doesnt mean its not possible.

this was written by diego del barko and it clearly shows we have a bad track record picking late first.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/commentary/1236-straight-rabbits-disturbing-trend-first-rounds-nfl-drafts/

Yet every year teams find gems in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th rounds and so on. If the 49ers were to not have a single need for the next 3 years I'd say go for it, but they will have plenty of needs and will want those extra picks.


You can trade up for a guy Madden style, be flashy and not be a long-term contender as a result, or you can do what teams like New England do, keep acquiring picks, go into every draft with some extra draft picks, and keep replacing guys as they age, keep yourself in contention long term. I want to see the 49ers in contention long term, not a flash in the pan that fizzles because the team dropped all their capital on a single guy who if he is a bust or ends up injured, will basically bury your team. Teams can recover from one bad draft, blowing up two of them in a row can cripple your franchise.

We have a situation where we have extra picks. If there was a player we felt could be an instant impact player, I'm for packaging them and taking a gamble. It worked well with Reid last year. In either of our scenarios, it's not an exact science and we have no idea how it would work out. I already mentioned you can get great players late in the draft, but it's a math thing to me. Chances are you get a better player with a better pick, that's the basis of the whole draft system, getting the worse teams the opportunity to draft the best players first. If we used extra picks to get the draft slot of a bad team, it's like being ahead of the game, as long as we don't pay too much. The whole argument is pointless though unless we know exact dynamics of potential trades and draft choices. What would it take to get Sammy Watkins? I have no idea, but as history has shown, the chances of getting a quality NFL player in the late first round is not as good as getting one earlier. This can not be argued.

We gave up a 3rd rd pick to move up to get Reid. Not a big deal. We would have to give up way way too much to move up to a top 5-7 pick to get Sammy Watkins. Trading up can certainly work well ( Jerry Rice is the best example) or be a complete bust (JJ Stokes comes to mind) but there are no guarantees. Based on the often used draft chart the Niners would have to give up their first, both seconds, the 3rd from Tennessee, and a 5th to move up to the 5th spot in the draft ( where Watkins would probably project to go).

Would you really want to give up 4 potential starters to get Sammy Watkins?

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by T-9ers:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by T-9ers:

i thinking the mortaging your future thing is a little over dramatic. history shows that the lower you go in the draft, the less chance you have a getting quality players. ofcourse that doesnt mean its not possible.

this was written by diego del barko and it clearly shows we have a bad track record picking late first.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/commentary/1236-straight-rabbits-disturbing-trend-first-rounds-nfl-drafts/

Yet every year teams find gems in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th rounds and so on. If the 49ers were to not have a single need for the next 3 years I'd say go for it, but they will have plenty of needs and will want those extra picks.


You can trade up for a guy Madden style, be flashy and not be a long-term contender as a result, or you can do what teams like New England do, keep acquiring picks, go into every draft with some extra draft picks, and keep replacing guys as they age, keep yourself in contention long term. I want to see the 49ers in contention long term, not a flash in the pan that fizzles because the team dropped all their capital on a single guy who if he is a bust or ends up injured, will basically bury your team. Teams can recover from one bad draft, blowing up two of them in a row can cripple your franchise.

We have a situation where we have extra picks. If there was a player we felt could be an instant impact player, I'm for packaging them and taking a gamble. It worked well with Reid last year. In either of our scenarios, it's not an exact science and we have no idea how it would work out. I already mentioned you can get great players late in the draft, but it's a math thing to me. Chances are you get a better player with a better pick, that's the basis of the whole draft system, getting the worse teams the opportunity to draft the best players first. If we used extra picks to get the draft slot of a bad team, it's like being ahead of the game, as long as we don't pay too much. The whole argument is pointless though unless we know exact dynamics of potential trades and draft choices. What would it take to get Sammy Watkins? I have no idea, but as history has shown, the chances of getting a quality NFL player in the late first round is not as good as getting one earlier. This can not be argued.

We gave up a 3rd rd pick to move up to get Reid. Not a big deal. We would have to give up way way too much to move up to a top 5-7 pick to get Sammy Watkins. Trading up can certainly work well ( Jerry Rice is the best example) or be a complete bust (JJ Stokes comes to mind) but there are no guarantees. Based on the often used draft chart the Niners would have to give up their first, both seconds, the 3rd from Tennessee, and a 5th to move up to the 5th spot in the draft ( where Watkins would probably project to go).

Would you really want to give up 4 potential starters to get Sammy Watkins?

No because this year I supposedly deep in receiver talent, but if Harbaugh/Baalke decide to do something like that I ain't going to complain, I think it would be pretty exciting.

You can't say "You'd be giving up 3 starters for one guy!". This is a team that has very few starter-level holes and is built to win now. IF you want a superbowl in the next 2-3 years, you have to gamble a bit and try to get IMPACT players now. In the last two drafts, with 18 players selected, they've added one impact guy (Reid) and there is potential for another couple (Carradine, Lattimore, but who knows). No one from 2012 will ever be a true impact player.

If this team had tons of holes or was building for the future, I'd be against a large-scale trade. But it doesn't. Willis, Davis, Staley, Cowboy, and McDonald only have a couple of top years left likely. You have to strike while the iron is hot. I'd trade every single player from the 2011 and 2012 drafts to get Calvin Johnson, but there's no way Detroit makes that trade.

You have to look at the roster situation. You get 53 slots, and at the end of the day there are roster spots for MAYBE 5-6 guys out of this draft. Why not make one of those a potential game-changer rather than cutting a bunch of ok guys and keeping some slightly better ones?

Originally posted by DarkKnight1680:
You can't say "You'd be giving up 3 starters for one guy!". This is a team that has very few starter-level holes and is built to win now. IF you want a superbowl in the next 2-3 years, you have to gamble a bit and try to get IMPACT players now. In the last two drafts, with 18 players selected, they've added one impact guy (Reid) and there is potential for another couple (Carradine, Lattimore, but who knows). No one from 2012 will ever be a true impact player.

If this team had tons of holes or was building for the future, I'd be against a large-scale trade. But it doesn't. Willis, Davis, Staley, Cowboy, and McDonald only have a couple of top years left likely. You have to strike while the iron is hot. I'd trade every single player from the 2011 and 2012 drafts to get Calvin Johnson, but there's no way Detroit makes that trade.

You have to look at the roster situation. You get 53 slots, and at the end of the day there are roster spots for MAYBE 5-6 guys out of this draft. Why not make one of those a potential game-changer rather than cutting a bunch of ok guys and keeping some slightly better ones?

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by DarkKnight1680:
You can't say "You'd be giving up 3 starters for one guy!". This is a team that has very few starter-level holes and is built to win now. IF you want a superbowl in the next 2-3 years, you have to gamble a bit and try to get IMPACT players now. In the last two drafts, with 18 players selected, they've added one impact guy (Reid) and there is potential for another couple (Carradine, Lattimore, but who knows). No one from 2012 will ever be a true impact player.

If this team had tons of holes or was building for the future, I'd be against a large-scale trade. But it doesn't. Willis, Davis, Staley, Cowboy, and McDonald only have a couple of top years left likely. You have to strike while the iron is hot. I'd trade every single player from the 2011 and 2012 drafts to get Calvin Johnson, but there's no way Detroit makes that trade.

You have to look at the roster situation. You get 53 slots, and at the end of the day there are roster spots for MAYBE 5-6 guys out of this draft. Why not make one of those a potential game-changer rather than cutting a bunch of ok guys and keeping some slightly better ones?

I guess he would trade Aldon and Kaep then to get Calvin Johnson since they were in the 2011 draft. LOL

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:

Ok,to all those who say no to the trade up scenerio and say ATL got the shaft in that trade,im curious about a few things.....

Did Atl have the number of multiple picks that we have this year??On top of the Comp picks we stand to get also??
To me,it stands to reason that if we end up getting rid of some picks in trade up/down scenarios,and if some of the guys wont even play,why not make an agressive move up??

Im against strapping the team for the future,but what about some of the back ups we have now,do we need to draft more??

Lets say Crab,Boldin,Lupati(lol),others dont re-up,thats money off the books to sign a higher pick right??Crab or Boldin leaves,we have Sammy.

I guess I just feel we might have more wiggle room to make an aggressive move up than what some might feel we do.I may be less informed than others,can someone shed some light??

Would you trade a potential starting CB, S, and WR and perhaps more to get one unproven rookie? I wouldnt. The Niners are good but they still have needs at WR, CB, SS, QB (backup), C to name a few. They can address all of these positions with quality players if they sit tight and draft well. It will also be important to have as many producing rookies as possible given the salary cap and the upcoming renegotation with Kaep.

Sammy would be awesome but he just isnt worth trading several high picks for.

Looks like we will have 12 picks,who says that the remaining "unproven" picks cant be starters if we "draft well"??No one knows.Those other backups you mentioned,can be addressed with the remaining picks after trading up.

I personally feel it wouldnt be too much to move up and draft an impact player of Sammy's caliber,ESPECIALLY if Boldin walks.

Originally posted by DarkKnight1680:

You can't say "You'd be giving up 3 starters for one guy!". This is a team that has very few starter-level holes and is built to win now. IF you want a superbowl in the next 2-3 years, you have to gamble a bit and try to get IMPACT players now. In the last two drafts, with 18 players selected, they've added one impact guy (Reid) and there is potential for another couple (Carradine, Lattimore, but who knows). No one from 2012 will ever be a true impact player.

If this team had tons of holes or was building for the future, I'd be against a large-scale trade. But it doesn't. Willis, Davis, Staley, Cowboy, and McDonald only have a couple of top years left likely. You have to strike while the iron is hot. I'd trade every single player from the 2011 and 2012 drafts to get Calvin Johnson, but there's no way Detroit makes that trade.

You have to look at the roster situation. You get 53 slots, and at the end of the day there are roster spots for MAYBE 5-6 guys out of this draft. Why not make one of those a potential game-changer rather than cutting a bunch of ok guys and keeping some slightly better ones?

Ehhhh,besides the trading the whole 2011 and 2012 drafts part lol,you summed up my position

no

Originally posted by DarkKnight1680:
You can't say "You'd be giving up 3 starters for one guy!". This is a team that has very few starter-level holes and is built to win now. IF you want a superbowl in the next 2-3 years, you have to gamble a bit and try to get IMPACT players now. In the last two drafts, with 18 players selected, they've added one impact guy (Reid) and there is potential for another couple (Carradine, Lattimore, but who knows). No one from 2012 will ever be a true impact player.

If this team had tons of holes or was building for the future, I'd be against a large-scale trade. But it doesn't. Willis, Davis, Staley, Cowboy, and McDonald only have a couple of top years left likely. You have to strike while the iron is hot. I'd trade every single player from the 2011 and 2012 drafts to get Calvin Johnson, but there's no way Detroit makes that trade.

You have to look at the roster situation. You get 53 slots, and at the end of the day there are roster spots for MAYBE 5-6 guys out of this draft. Why not make one of those a potential game-changer rather than cutting a bunch of ok guys and keeping some slightly better ones?

Bye bye three straight NFC Championships and being likely favorites to return next year. But we will have a 1,200 to 2,000 yard receiver .

We need to pick up JC Copeland from LSU so he can knock Seattle's linebackers flat on their ass + Kam Chancellor

I'd trade up, but not give up that much and not for Sammy Watkins.

I'd trade up for Marquise Lee, who is also a threat in the return game.

Originally posted by Garlicboy:

I'd trade up, but not give up that much and not for Sammy Watkins.

I'd trade up for Marquise Lee, who is also a threat in the return game.

Have Boldin, Patton, and Lee in a trips bunch formation... *DROOLS*

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by T-9ers:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by T-9ers:
i thinking the mortaging your future thing is a little over dramatic. history shows that the lower you go in the draft, the less chance you have a getting quality players. ofcourse that doesnt mean its not possible.

this was written by diego del barko and it clearly shows we have a bad track record picking late first.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/commentary/1236-straight-rabbits-disturbing-trend-first-rounds-nfl-drafts/

Yet every year teams find gems in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th rounds and so on. If the 49ers were to not have a single need for the next 3 years I'd say go for it, but they will have plenty of needs and will want those extra picks.


You can trade up for a guy Madden style, be flashy and not be a long-term contender as a result, or you can do what teams like New England do, keep acquiring picks, go into every draft with some extra draft picks, and keep replacing guys as they age, keep yourself in contention long term. I want to see the 49ers in contention long term, not a flash in the pan that fizzles because the team dropped all their capital on a single guy who if he is a bust or ends up injured, will basically bury your team. Teams can recover from one bad draft, blowing up two of them in a row can cripple your franchise.

We have a situation where we have extra picks. If there was a player we felt could be an instant impact player, I'm for packaging them and taking a gamble. It worked well with Reid last year. In either of our scenarios, it's not an exact science and we have no idea how it would work out. I already mentioned you can get great players late in the draft, but it's a math thing to me. Chances are you get a better player with a better pick, that's the basis of the whole draft system, getting the worse teams the opportunity to draft the best players first. If we used extra picks to get the draft slot of a bad team, it's like being ahead of the game, as long as we don't pay too much. The whole argument is pointless though unless we know exact dynamics of potential trades and draft choices. What would it take to get Sammy Watkins? I have no idea, but as history has shown, the chances of getting a quality NFL player in the late first round is not as good as getting one earlier. This can not be argued.

We gave up a 3rd rd pick to move up to get Reid. Not a big deal. We would have to give up way way too much to move up to a top 5-7 pick to get Sammy Watkins. Trading up can certainly work well ( Jerry Rice is the best example) or be a complete bust (JJ Stokes comes to mind) but there are no guarantees. Based on the often used draft chart the Niners would have to give up their first, both seconds, the 3rd from Tennessee, and a 5th to move up to the 5th spot in the draft ( where Watkins would probably project to go).

Would you really want to give up 4 potential starters to get Sammy Watkins?

I'm willing to bet it doesn't work out usually (trading multiple picks to essentially acquire one player). Just to add to your point, not only was JJ Stokes not nearly what he was expected to be (I wouldn't call Stokes a complete bust), but one of the picks we gave up was used to draft Ray Lewis, a player we certainly could have used as our defense aged and we needed to cut veterans due to salary.

The only time I can justify this type of move is when it is to draft a potential franchise quarterback. But outside of that, there is no reason to jeopardize the future of your team for one player.

Would I trade five picks to move up to select either wr. No No way in hell, would I be willing to screw a team like we did to dallas to aquire a player of reed caliber. I'll do a trade similar to that, but we need wr's all we have is payton and crabtree so far for next season, hopefully boldin, and cb help and youth, possible a new SS, also we could use oline help do to possible lose of a center and the injury to mike. We have more than one hole to fill.

I'm not willing to do a jones trade or a Rg3 type of trade, both those teams got great players, but screwed the team as a whole because they couldn't add talent around those players.