There are 144 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

MOCK DRAFT MC9BEAT

Originally posted by Garlicboy:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
The reason I have Fales over Murray is because I am not sure Murray could play right away and we need a back up ready to go day 1. Last year we lost a trip to the superbowl by 1 win during the regular season. 1 more win we take the division and we are the #1 seed with a bye week and home field advantage. If we were to draft Murray we would need to sign a veteran QB for the season. The only reason to take a QB early is to save the cap space because if they are any good they won't be around in 4 years.

I'm confused by your reasoning? Initially you claim a need for a solid back-up whose ready to play from day 1 due to the competitiveness in the division and then claim the only reason to draft a rookie QB is to save cap $. So what is more valuable; a ready to go QB (which to me is a veteran) or the cap space (draft a rookie as back-up QB)? In my opinion both are important, but just want to know which one you value more the veteran QB who can win games if Kaepernick is injured or a gamble on a rookie QB that he can win a game or two if Kaepernick is injured and has a low salary.

IMHO the ready to go veteran back-up QB does not have to be expensive. Rex Grossman made less than $1 million a year last year.

Rookie QB's drafted in the 4th- 7th rounds are HUGE gambles. Yes their cheap, but I would rather go with a proven veteran who knows their role and has playoff experience over a rookie QB just getting their feet wet. I think the 49ers can draft a couple of QB's an injured Aaron Murray in the 4th/5th and a developmental QB in the 7th, but definitely necessary to sign a veteran QB as the primary back-up because I'd trust a veteran over a mid-late round rookie QB.

I am assuming for arguments sake that Fales or Murray (if he were healthy) would be good enough to solidify the position as rookies. Those drafted later would be a gamble as you said. With the rookie salary cap they would make less than even a cheap veteran and save us some cap space. Otherwise I would rather use the pick on another position and sign a veteran QB.

I don't want to be negative but you want to sign a veteran and draft 2 rookie QB's? The 49ers are so deep they probably won't keep 3 QB's on the roster and the 2nd one will be taken by another team before we can stash him on the practice squad. Murray we could stash on the pup list but we will only get him for 3 years before he is gone when his contract is up. If we had an older QB like Manning or Brady it would make more sense but there is no future here for a young QB so basically we would be spending a 4th round pick for a player we hope and prey never plays a single down of football for us (except clean-up duty in a blowout) before leaving. All things being equal I would rather not and sign a vet but they cost more and use up more cap space.
Originally posted by 49ers808:
SJB will not be there that late in the third, he's gained to much momentum and being compared to Sherman put him in the second round easily. Maybe switch him with Richburgs spot and get Stork or Martin at C in the third

Some of these players are climbing up draft boards. Fuller, SJB, Bryant. It is realistic today but in a week or two who knows? The combine will change everything.
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
I am assuming for arguments sake that Fales or Murray (if he were healthy) would be good enough to solidify the position as rookies. Those drafted later would be a gamble as you said. With the rookie salary cap they would make less than even a cheap veteran and save us some cap space. Otherwise I would rather use the pick on another position and sign a veteran QB.

I still think Fales and Murray are a gamble more so than a veteran at least, and some veterans could be had for cheap, less than a million per year.

I don't want to be negative but you want to sign a veteran and draft 2 rookie QB's? The 49ers are so deep they probably won't keep 3 QB's on the roster and the 2nd one will be taken by another team before we can stash him on the practice squad.

Yes, I would draft 2 rookie QB's, especially if the one was a late round 7th with one of of our 3-7th round picks. One would be an injured Murray or Mettenberger QB we can stash on the NFI/PUP list. A 7th round QB on the practice squad (not necessary just an option, but not big on the option because we tried to stash BJ Daniels on the practice squad and now he's a Seahawk). But once again it would be one of 3- 7th rounds, not the end of the world if the guy doesn't clear waivers. But QB is the most important position on the field so it wouldn't hurt to invest a late 7th in the position.


Murray we could stash on the pup list but we will only get him for 3 years before he is gone when his contract is up. If we had an older QB like Manning or Brady it would make more sense but there is no future here for a young QB so basically we would be spending a 4th round pick for a player we hope and prey never plays a single down of football for us (except clean-up duty in a blowout) before leaving. All things being equal I would rather not and sign a vet but they cost more and use up more cap space.

Ironic that you you go against your own advice? There is always a future for a young QB, as your argument states, they would be a low priced option. Not sure what the difference is between David Fales and Aaron Murray. Your okay drafting Fales as back-up QB on a rookie contract, but not okay with drafting Aaron Murray on a rookie contract with one year on the PUP list? Just not understanding you reasoning here.

I guess IMHO, veteran QB's are more proven whereas rookie QB's are not a sure thing.

It is also my belief that a QB who is not rushed into a system and takes a year or more to learn the system will be more effective when thrust into a starting role. This is actually a major reason as to why I would prefer to draft an injured QB.
Originally posted by Garlicboy:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
I am assuming for arguments sake that Fales or Murray (if he were healthy) would be good enough to solidify the position as rookies. Those drafted later would be a gamble as you said. With the rookie salary cap they would make less than even a cheap veteran and save us some cap space. Otherwise I would rather use the pick on another position and sign a veteran QB.

I still think Fales and Murray are a gamble more so than a veteran at least, and some veterans could be had for cheap, less than a million per year.

I don't want to be negative but you want to sign a veteran and draft 2 rookie QB's? The 49ers are so deep they probably won't keep 3 QB's on the roster and the 2nd one will be taken by another team before we can stash him on the practice squad.

Yes, I would draft 2 rookie QB's, especially if the one was a late round 7th with one of of our 3-7th round picks. One would be an injured Murray or Mettenberger QB we can stash on the NFI/PUP list. A 7th round QB on the practice squad (not necessary just an option, but not big on the option because we tried to stash BJ Daniels on the practice squad and now he's a Seahawk). But once again it would be one of 3- 7th rounds, not the end of the world if the guy doesn't clear waivers. But QB is the most important position on the field so it wouldn't hurt to invest a late 7th in the position.


Murray we could stash on the pup list but we will only get him for 3 years before he is gone when his contract is up. If we had an older QB like Manning or Brady it would make more sense but there is no future here for a young QB so basically we would be spending a 4th round pick for a player we hope and prey never plays a single down of football for us (except clean-up duty in a blowout) before leaving. All things being equal I would rather not and sign a vet but they cost more and use up more cap space.

Ironic that you you go against your own advice? There is always a future for a young QB, as your argument states, they would be a low priced option. Not sure what the difference is between David Fales and Aaron Murray. Your okay drafting Fales as back-up QB on a rookie contract, but not okay with drafting Aaron Murray on a rookie contract with one year on the PUP list? Just not understanding you reasoning here.

I guess IMHO, veteran QB's are more proven whereas rookie QB's are not a sure thing.

It is also my belief that a QB who is not rushed into a system and takes a year or more to learn the system will be more effective when thrust into a starting role. This is actually a major reason as to why I would prefer to draft an injured QB.

If you are the 49ers and you don't believe that Fales or Murray would be a good back up in their 1st year then I wouldn't draft either. As I stated before, and please take in this point even if you disagree, I, that means me, don't believe the 49ers will keep 3 QB's on the roster. This is the deepest team in the NFL and getting deeper. I believe if they draft 2 QB's they will try to put 1 on the practice squad and he will be gone. I believe they will sign a young QB for the practice squad after the 53 man rosters are set to be their 3rd QB which is why I don't want to draft 2. I am not worried about spending a 2nd draft pick. I am worried that pick will be on another team. If you think they will carry 3 QB's it's ok to disagree with that point.

As for why Fales over Murray. 1 thing. We get 4 years of cap friendly service from Fales and only 3 from Murray. Get it? It's ok to disagree but you do understand the concept don't you? If either are any good when their contract comes up they will want to go somewhere where they have a chance to start. It's ok to think 3 years of service from Murray is better than 4 years from Fales but you do understand the concept don't you?

I don't see a future for a young QB with the 49ers at this time. That means beyond their rookie contract, understand? What part of my own advice am I going against?

If the 49ers don't think Fales would be ready to be the #2 QB as a rookie I would pass on him. I would pass on Murray as well because of his injury at a position where it will be unlikely we could resign him limiting him to 3 years of service. On the other hand if Murray were to fall to the 5th or 6th round I could see it being worth it even for just the 3 years. A pup list CB or DE could become a starter and be resigned but a QB is different. The starting position at QB is locked up for a long time to come and unless the rest of the league doesn't see any potential as a starter for Murray he will be almost impossible to resign. It would be different if we had Alex Smith as our starter because the potential to be groomed under your rookie contract and then resign to compete for the starting job would be there.

That is my position. It is very clear and easy to understand. I could understand you disagreeing with me. But you state things like "There is always a future for a young QB as your argument states". My argument doesn't state that. That is the exact opposite of what I am saying.
Originally posted by 49ers808:
SJB will not be there that late in the third, he's gained to much momentum and being compared to Sherman put him in the second round easily. Maybe switch him with Richburgs spot and get Stork or Martin at C in the third

Actually if SJB continues to rise up the boards that would make perfect sense. Move him up to the 2nd round and prey Richburg lasts till the 3rd, maybe even use our last 7th rounder to move up a few spots to get him and if he is gone Stork or Martin would probably be available.