There are 133 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

LMJeff's FIRST Mock

Originally posted by genus49:
Care to explain why?

I'm not married to the opinion, but I just didn't see what everyone else did when I saw him play. He didn't seem extremely sudden; he didn't seem very tough. He's not tall; he has short arms, his vertical isn't great. His 2nd gear seems lacking. He does a good job of staying with the receiver, but I don't see him close on the football well. This doesn't spell an elite prospect to me. He seems more like an ok prospect. Not much better than Marcus Roberson IMO.

I've also seen him slip a few times, which makes me question his balance.
If all of these guys are available where you have them, then hey, looks great. The only one I have to seriously say won't be there is Lynch in the 7th, but still... overall good.
While almost every mock draft is likely to be almost totally wrong (with all due respect to the OP's thoughtful effort), what these mocks reinforce to me is how powerful the Niner's position is in this draft and the huge influx of talent that we likely will get. Every fan should be excited for the future of this team.
Nice mock
This mock draft reminds me of the 81 draft. Hopefully these would be 3 dbs that would become instant studs for us.
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
You kind of lost me with the last 3rd round pick on, Would prefer Barrow at ILB.

I don't see room on the roster for 2 OL's in this draft.

The 7th rd picks are mostly a waste and won't make the team and will probably get nabbed up by other teams before we could stash them on the practice squad.

Up to the point of the last 3rd rd pick I love the mock and hope we get that lucky.

Max Bullough is a pretty damn good linebacker and helped anchor one of the toughest defenses in college football. Barrow would be fine, but I have Bullough ranked just as high.

Remember that this mock has no trades, and I'm pretty sure we won't be using ALL our draft picks. With that being said, I have this team taking TWO o-linemen because there's always room for competition for starter at center and for depth.

Originally posted by Quest4six:
I should have specified.
I think Matthews will go early second round if not first, I have him going to the Rams in round 2... If he is there at the end of the second round that would be great.

It's possible, but one thing a lot of people tend to do when it comes to the draft is overvalue every receiver available. Just like last year with Patton and Da'Rick Rogers. This year's draft is absolutely LOADED with receiver and I feel teams would be willing to wait for a receiver if it meant answering issues at other positions.
Originally posted by VPofCarnage:
Originally posted by genus49:
Care to explain why?

I'm not married to the opinion, but I just didn't see what everyone else did when I saw him play. He didn't seem extremely sudden; he didn't seem very tough. He's not tall; he has short arms, his vertical isn't great. His 2nd gear seems lacking. He does a good job of staying with the receiver, but I don't see him close on the football well. This doesn't spell an elite prospect to me. He seems more like an ok prospect. Not much better than Marcus Roberson IMO.

I've also seen him slip a few times, which makes me question his balance.

i disagree with this post. dennard is considered a big (5'11, 200 lb), physical corner. his 36" vertical was impressive and although he isn't as fast as someone like Justin Gilbert, his aggressive play keeps him close to the opposing receiver. there is no comparison to Marcus Roberson, who not only had a tough year for Florida, but also had a tough performance at the combine and even his pro day.
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
You kind of lost me with the last 3rd round pick on, Would prefer Barrow at ILB.

I don't see room on the roster for 2 OL's in this draft.

The 7th rd picks are mostly a waste and won't make the team and will probably get nabbed up by other teams before we could stash them on the practice squad.

Up to the point of the last 3rd rd pick I love the mock and hope we get that lucky.

Max Bullough is a pretty damn good linebacker and helped anchor one of the toughest defenses in college football. Barrow would be fine, but I have Bullough ranked just as high.

Remember that this mock has no trades, and I'm pretty sure we won't be using ALL our draft picks. With that being said, I have this team taking TWO o-linemen because there's always room for competition for starter at center and for depth.

Originally posted by Quest4six:
I should have specified.
I think Matthews will go early second round if not first, I have him going to the Rams in round 2... If he is there at the end of the second round that would be great.

It's possible, but one thing a lot of people tend to do when it comes to the draft is overvalue every receiver available. Just like last year with Patton and Da'Rick Rogers. This year's draft is absolutely LOADED with receiver and I feel teams would be willing to wait for a receiver if it meant answering issues at other positions.

There's always room for competition means somebody is getting cut. Why draft players that might make not make the team even if they play as well as you could have hoped for when you could draft players where you have roster spots available?

Why not draft 3 DL's and 2 more RB's? There's always room for competition. Because we don't have spots available for them.
I wouldn't be mad at this draft at all.

Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
There's always room for competition means somebody is getting cut. Why draft players that might make not make the team even if they play as well as you could have hoped for when you could draft players where you have roster spots available?

Why not draft 3 DL's and 2 more RB's? There's always room for competition. Because we don't have spots available for them.

That's the business of the NFL. Some of these rooks could pan out better than Kilgore, or Looney, or Marquart, or Moody, or Fleming, etc. And I did draft a DL in this draft to go along with our rotation which will be getting Tank and Ian Williams back.
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
There's always room for competition means somebody is getting cut. Why draft players that might make not make the team even if they play as well as you could have hoped for when you could draft players where you have roster spots available?

Why not draft 3 DL's and 2 more RB's? There's always room for competition. Because we don't have spots available for them.

That's the business of the NFL. Some of these rooks could pan out better than Kilgore, or Looney, or Marquart, or Moody, or Fleming, etc. And I did draft a DL in this draft to go along with our rotation which will be getting Tank and Ian Williams back.

We started last season with 8 OL's. Take our 5 starters and add Martin and Looney and Snyder as the projected back ups. Anyone else is going to have to bump 1 of them off the roster. We already have Marquart and Seymore for competition. Martin isn't going anywhere and it won't be easy bumping Snyder who is versatile or Looney who is experienced off the roster. Drafting 2 doesn't make sense.

You drafted a DL but why not 3? They could pan out better than Dial, TJE and Williams as you say? Because it doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
There's always room for competition means somebody is getting cut. Why draft players that might make not make the team even if they play as well as you could have hoped for when you could draft players where you have roster spots available?

Why not draft 3 DL's and 2 more RB's? There's always room for competition. Because we don't have spots available for them.

That's the business of the NFL. Some of these rooks could pan out better than Kilgore, or Looney, or Marquart, or Moody, or Fleming, etc. And I did draft a DL in this draft to go along with our rotation which will be getting Tank and Ian Williams back.

We started last season with 8 OL's. Take our 5 starters and add Martin and Looney and Snyder as the projected back ups. Anyone else is going to have to bump 1 of them off the roster. We already have Marquart and Seymore for competition. Martin isn't going anywhere and it won't be easy bumping Snyder who is versatile or Looney who is experienced off the roster. Drafting 2 doesn't make sense.

You drafted a DL but why not 3? They could pan out better than Dial, TJE and Williams as you say? Because it doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is your logic. You can't really compare DL and OL because the OL stays mainly the same unless there is injury. Our DL changes based on whether or not the opposing offense is running a 3-4 WR set or a standard I-formation. We have specific DL rotations, which is why we have so many d-linemen.

Martin and Looney aren't sure things, either. Martin is coming off a disaster in Miami and Looney hasn't really raised eyebrows. And please take a look at the history of our 49er drafts. How many 5th-7th rounders stay with the team? To say that it doesn't make sense to draft offensive linemen just because we have others at the position is ridiculous considering our backups in Looney/Martin/etc arent sure things. Just like Dial isn't, too.
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
There's always room for competition means somebody is getting cut. Why draft players that might make not make the team even if they play as well as you could have hoped for when you could draft players where you have roster spots available?

Why not draft 3 DL's and 2 more RB's? There's always room for competition. Because we don't have spots available for them.

That's the business of the NFL. Some of these rooks could pan out better than Kilgore, or Looney, or Marquart, or Moody, or Fleming, etc. And I did draft a DL in this draft to go along with our rotation which will be getting Tank and Ian Williams back.

We started last season with 8 OL's. Take our 5 starters and add Martin and Looney and Snyder as the projected back ups. Anyone else is going to have to bump 1 of them off the roster. We already have Marquart and Seymore for competition. Martin isn't going anywhere and it won't be easy bumping Snyder who is versatile or Looney who is experienced off the roster. Drafting 2 doesn't make sense.

You drafted a DL but why not 3? They could pan out better than Dial, TJE and Williams as you say? Because it doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is your logic. You can't really compare DL and OL because the OL stays mainly the same unless there is injury. Our DL changes based on whether or not the opposing offense is running a 3-4 WR set or a standard I-formation. We have specific DL rotations, which is why we have so many d-linemen.

Martin and Looney aren't sure things, either. Martin is coming off a disaster in Miami and Looney hasn't really raised eyebrows. And please take a look at the history of our 49er drafts. How many 5th-7th rounders stay with the team? To say that it doesn't make sense to draft offensive linemen just because we have others at the position is ridiculous considering our backups in Looney/Martin/etc arent sure things. Just like Dial isn't, too.

Assuming your 4th rd pick Larsen makes the team and bumps 1 of our veteran back ups off the roster you then want to use a 5th round pick to draft G Zach Fulton who as you state "is still very raw" in hopes of bumping a 2nd vet off the roster?

And the history of our draft means absolutely nothing. We have a very deep team. We were so deep last year we were trading good players for 7th rd picks just to make room on the roster and this year will be even tougher. We didn't have this kind of depth in the past so past drafts don't really apply.

I could see the 49ers drafting a G early if they projected him as next years starter to replace Iupati but to spend a 5th rd pick on a player you say is still very raw to compete with quality established vets I would rather pass on. This draft is deep and there will be players we could get in round 5 that will be able to help us. I would prefer to draft 1 of them rather than a very raw player at a position where we already have good players on the team. I don't like wasting picks and seeing draft picks get cut.

Maybe we just have different ideas but I always believed that if a draft pick plays as well as you could hope for they should make the team. If they are busts or dissapointments that's different. If a UDFA surprises everyone and takes the spot you still get a great rookie.

Anything is possible but I would take a different tact.
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
Originally posted by LaMichaelJeff:
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
There's always room for competition means somebody is getting cut. Why draft players that might make not make the team even if they play as well as you could have hoped for when you could draft players where you have roster spots available?

Why not draft 3 DL's and 2 more RB's? There's always room for competition. Because we don't have spots available for them.

That's the business of the NFL. Some of these rooks could pan out better than Kilgore, or Looney, or Marquart, or Moody, or Fleming, etc. And I did draft a DL in this draft to go along with our rotation which will be getting Tank and Ian Williams back.

We started last season with 8 OL's. Take our 5 starters and add Martin and Looney and Snyder as the projected back ups. Anyone else is going to have to bump 1 of them off the roster. We already have Marquart and Seymore for competition. Martin isn't going anywhere and it won't be easy bumping Snyder who is versatile or Looney who is experienced off the roster. Drafting 2 doesn't make sense.

You drafted a DL but why not 3? They could pan out better than Dial, TJE and Williams as you say? Because it doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is your logic. You can't really compare DL and OL because the OL stays mainly the same unless there is injury. Our DL changes based on whether or not the opposing offense is running a 3-4 WR set or a standard I-formation. We have specific DL rotations, which is why we have so many d-linemen.

Martin and Looney aren't sure things, either. Martin is coming off a disaster in Miami and Looney hasn't really raised eyebrows. And please take a look at the history of our 49er drafts. How many 5th-7th rounders stay with the team? To say that it doesn't make sense to draft offensive linemen just because we have others at the position is ridiculous considering our backups in Looney/Martin/etc arent sure things. Just like Dial isn't, too.

Assuming your 4th rd pick Larsen makes the team and bumps 1 of our veteran back ups off the roster you then want to use a 5th round pick to draft G Zach Fulton who as you state "is still very raw" in hopes of bumping a 2nd vet off the roster?

And the history of our draft means absolutely nothing. We have a very deep team. We were so deep last year we were trading good players for 7th rd picks just to make room on the roster and this year will be even tougher. We didn't have this kind of depth in the past so past drafts don't really apply.

I could see the 49ers drafting a G early if they projected him as next years starter to replace Iupati but to spend a 5th rd pick on a player you say is still very raw to compete with quality established vets I would rather pass on. This draft is deep and there will be players we could get in round 5 that will be able to help us. I would prefer to draft 1 of them rather than a very raw player at a position where we already have good players on the team. I don't like wasting picks and seeing draft picks get cut.

Maybe we just have different ideas but I always believed that if a draft pick plays as well as you could hope for they should make the team. If they are busts or dissapointments that's different. If a UDFA surprises everyone and takes the spot you still get a great rookie.

Anything is possible but I would take a different tact.
Originally posted by MC9BEAT:
Assuming your 4th rd pick Larsen makes the team and bumps 1 of our veteran back ups off the roster you then want to use a 5th round pick to draft G Zach Fulton who as you state "is still very raw" in hopes of bumping a 2nd vet off the roster?

And the history of our draft means absolutely nothing. We have a very deep team. We were so deep last year we were trading good players for 7th rd picks just to make room on the roster and this year will be even tougher. We didn't have this kind of depth in the past so past drafts don't really apply.

I could see the 49ers drafting a G early if they projected him as next years starter to replace Iupati but to spend a 5th rd pick on a player you say is still very raw to compete with quality established vets I would rather pass on. This draft is deep and there will be players we could get in round 5 that will be able to help us. I would prefer to draft 1 of them rather than a very raw player at a position where we already have good players on the team. I don't like wasting picks and seeing draft picks get cut.

Maybe we just have different ideas but I always believed that if a draft pick plays as well as you could hope for they should make the team. If they are busts or dissapointments that's different. If a UDFA surprises everyone and takes the spot you still get a great rookie.

Anything is possible but I would take a different tact.

I see what you're saying, but you say we have a real deep team, and i agree, but admit to going to a different position in the 5th round who could potentially help right away. that's the same concept IMO. if you were to take a WR, or a LB, CB, S, whatever, in the 5th round, and expect them to help, that just means you'll be bumping off a vet, right? If we were to take Fulton, who is raw with plenty of potential, why would we pass on that for a player at a different position in a very deep roster? we've had a deep roster since Harbaugh's first draft.

regardless on this debate, even with this deep draft, it will be difficult for any 5th-7th round rookie to bypass a vet. They'd have to show something real special.
...