There are 149 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Mock draft with 3 low first round draft picks, seven picks total and not mortgaging future

NO WAYJose Cortez...if anything we need to trade back and grab picks for next year while still getting players who are quality. This draft is so deep it's too true to believe. The Pats are already looking at moving back. Hell if Bridgewater and Johnny Football fall that far in the draft we better move back. I think we could get a second or third this year and a first next year from a team for either one of those players.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
We won't get 3 first rounders. This is unrealistic. You have to find willing trade partners. They may not be willing to deal out of the first round for all those lower picks.

The two trading partners are

Pick 29 New England- they love to trade
Pick 31 Denver- they have a lot of depth issues and I think would trade back.

do I think this is going to happen, no. But seeing the benefit of the 5th year option for contracts makes me day dream. Heck even if people do not like my picks, getting 3 players in the top 31 picks of a draft would be awesome.
  • pd24
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,040
Originally posted by 9erred:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
We won't get 3 first rounders. This is unrealistic. You have to find willing trade partners. They may not be willing to deal out of the first round for all those lower picks.

The two trading partners are

Pick 29 New England- they love to trade
Pick 31 Denver- they have a lot of depth issues and I think would trade back.

do I think this is going to happen, no. But seeing the benefit of the 5th year option for contracts makes me day dream. Heck even if people do not like my picks, getting 3 players in the top 31 picks of a draft would be awesome.


The 5th year option isn't that big a deal for the way the Niners do business. Most of these draft picks will be for depth and rotation players, if the niners view them as long term players, they will rework the deal after year 3. Kind of what we did to Brock last year, he was good but didn't play much, so we got a great deal out of that. The same with Brooks, even though he wasn't a draft pick, he was used in a rotation, got extended at a low rate and became a solid pro bowl player. Bruce Miller was solid for 3 years and now is extended at a good rate. I don't think the Niners or many teams are worried about the 5th year option unless it is for a QB that needs time to develop.
Originally posted by bigwads:
Originally posted by reasonable1:
Why???

You have 11 picks in the deepest draft in about 15 years and you want to trade half of it for an undersized corner, an undersized WR who may not have the strength to be consistent in the NFL and a boom or bust prospect at the same position.

Not really understanding the logic here. Especially when there will be needs at CB, WR, OL, QB, RB, TE and on the DL. No way I am turning 6 of the top 100 and 11 overall into 3 first rounders (who may not even start right away) and 3 7th rounders with a comp pick sandwiched in.

Ouch


I wasn't trying to be an ass...but honestly it makes no sense to go from a position of strength to a position of vulnerability. You have 11 picks (most in the NFL) and 6 of the top 100 (also most in the NFL). So you are in position to grab at least 6 of the top 100 eligible players in this draft and you trade half of it for literal boom or bust products. Not exactly a smart move.
I don't like either of the receivers you have us taking.
I don't have a problem with us moving up "Once" ...if an impact player is still available in the upper teens, maybe we can package our first with a 3rd and a 4th to get closer , I wouldn't want to trade any of our 2nd round picks , that is where we can find players that will contribute this year
Originally posted by bigwads:
Originally posted by reasonable1:
Why???

You have 11 picks in the deepest draft in about 15 years and you want to trade half of it for an undersized corner, an undersized WR who may not have the strength to be consistent in the NFL and a boom or bust prospect at the same position.

Not really understanding the logic here. Especially when there will be needs at CB, WR, OL, QB, RB, TE and on the DL. No way I am turning 6 of the top 100 and 11 overall into 3 first rounders (who may not even start right away) and 3 7th rounders with a comp pick sandwiched in.
CB - pick 29 check
WR- pick 30 check
WR pick 31 double check (or substitue in SS or OL) whatever is BPA.
QB- check with pick 100
TE- Really, you have VD, McDonald and Celek, what are the odds of one beating them out, maybe Celek, but that person could be had in round 7,
RB- Really ?? Gore, Hunter, LMJ, maybe a ST RB in round 7
DL- no need.
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Interesting concept and I can't say it's not possible, nor can I state that Baalke is beyond doing something like this. I might disagree with your choices but I admire your audacity! Would be a very bold move...one that I would not make, but none the less...interesting! Thanks for making folks think outside the box.

Agreed and said respectfully.