49ERS 2014 DRAFT WITH EXTENSIVE RESEARCH

Originally posted by captain_planet:
Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

We SHOULD not take an ILB with any of our top 100 picks. Why? Because best case scenario is that he plays until Bowman is healthy and then never starts again. Seems like a waste of a third round pick. IMO they will sign a vet ILB like Desmond Bishop after the draft for cheap and let him compete for the job.
We SHOULD draft 2 CB's in the top 100 but not necessarily one in the 1st. IMO the draft seems a lot deeper at CB than WR. (still deep at WR though like everyone says) So it would seem more prudent to take the best player available at 30 (still a need position though) like S, CB, WR, DL. Then take advantage of the deep CB class by taking 2 CB's in the top 100 or top 61 if they're graded out there. Or 2 WR's in the top 100 If there graded higher than other players available.
IMO I hope we take a S, DL, 2 CB's or 2 WR's (at least 1 of each) and an OL (no earlier than the 3rd) in the top 100.

IMO K Benjamin has bust written all over him. The earliest I'd consider him would be the 4th. Btw same goes for J Landry.

Am I allowed to agree with the above post without being lambasted?

Originally posted by captain_planet:
Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

WR and CB going forward are an extreme need and should be our focus for present and future development. If he spreads positions past WR or CB it will be because of a can't miss BPA only.
Our needs are small and our focus is directly on a few positions WR,CB,S then ILB, QB and maybe DT, DE

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by captain_planet:
Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

We SHOULD not take an ILB with any of our top 100 picks. Why? Because best case scenario is that he plays until Bowman is healthy and then never starts again. Seems like a waste of a third round pick. IMO they will sign a vet ILB like Desmond Bishop after the draft for cheap and let him compete for the job.
We SHOULD draft 2 CB's in the top 100 but not necessarily one in the 1st. IMO the draft seems a lot deeper at CB than WR. (still deep at WR though like everyone says) So it would seem more prudent to take the best player available at 30 (still a need position though) like S, CB, WR, DL. Then take advantage of the deep CB class by taking 2 CB's in the top 100 or top 61 if they're graded out there. Or 2 WR's in the top 100 If there graded higher than other players available.
IMO I hope we take a S, DL, 2 CB's or 2 WR's (at least 1 of each) and an OL (no earlier than the 3rd) in the top 100.

This minus OL in the early rounds. C is deep and could fall so it might happen though.

Originally posted by captain_planet:

Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

Baalke will spread out our first 3-5 picks to cover our needs. That part of what you said I agree with, but if two WR's or 2 CB are the best players available and Baalke makes a selection at those picks, I guarantee you he will repeat picks at a position and I don't think he'd hesitate. Guarantee it all you want, that doesn't make it so. Just because you don't like the idea of taking two players at the same position does NOT give you the right to guarantee what Baalke is going to do.

WRT Benjamin, I'd say buyer beware...he had one big season. Plenty of others who had much more complete, consistent college careers like Matthews, Evans, even Moncrief.

McGill's not 2nd rd talent. Baalke would be wize to grab Fuller in 1st, even if he has to trade up slightly. 2nd rd plenty of excellent WR's available...Matthews would be ideal.

Joyner's a baller, good pick.

Understand the adage you never have enough PR's, but the need is at ILB.

I get Archer's speed, but he's on the light side. Baalke likes Cook for his production, but also because he's stout, as is Robert Herron. 20 lbs of muscle at their heights is a big deal in terms of surviving in the NFL.

Don't know a thing about the DE from Princeton.

I like Stork there...too many mocksters have us taking one in 2nd or 3rd rd, which is ridiculous, IMHO. Baalke wouldn't have extended Kilgore for 3 yrs if he didn't have confidence he could take over at C for Goodwin.

Not sure I get the trade to get Thomas, but I know Harbaugh's kind of intrigued with him.

Originally posted by captain_planet:

Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

Completely agree . We do have WR's and CB's already on the roster. There's no reason to spend more than one pick on each position in the 1st 2 rounds. WR can even be addressed in the 3rd if Bryant is there. Also some high ceiling prospects in the 4 the and 5th rounds. No reason to draft a lot of receivers at the top

Originally posted by juycho:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by captain_planet:

Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

We SHOULD not take an ILB with any of our top 100 picks. Why? Because best case scenario is that he plays until Bowman is healthy and then never starts again. Seems like a waste of a third round pick. IMO they will sign a vet ILB like Desmond Bishop after the draft for cheap and let him compete for the job.
We SHOULD draft 2 CB's in the top 100 but not necessarily one in the 1st. IMO the draft seems a lot deeper at CB than WR. (still deep at WR though like everyone says) So it would seem more prudent to take the best player available at 30 (still a need position though) like S, CB, WR, DL. Then take advantage of the deep CB class by taking 2 CB's in the top 100 or top 61 if they're graded out there. Or 2 WR's in the top 100 If there graded higher than other players available.
IMO I hope we take a S, DL, 2 CB's or 2 WR's (at least 1 of each) and an OL (no earlier than the 3rd) in the top 100.

This minus OL in the early rounds. C is deep and could fall so it might happen though.

I agree. I don't want to take an OL that early. I'd prefer to take Bodine in the 5th to play G or C in case Killgore fails. But if Baalke has serious doubts about getting a Iupati deal done, I could see us taking his replacement in the 3rd this year so that we're not starting a rookie next year.

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by juycho:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by captain_planet:
Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

We SHOULD not take an ILB with any of our top 100 picks. Why? Because best case scenario is that he plays until Bowman is healthy and then never starts again. Seems like a waste of a third round pick. IMO they will sign a vet ILB like Desmond Bishop after the draft for cheap and let him compete for the job.
We SHOULD draft 2 CB's in the top 100 but not necessarily one in the 1st. IMO the draft seems a lot deeper at CB than WR. (still deep at WR though like everyone says) So it would seem more prudent to take the best player available at 30 (still a need position though) like S, CB, WR, DL. Then take advantage of the deep CB class by taking 2 CB's in the top 100 or top 61 if they're graded out there. Or 2 WR's in the top 100 If there graded higher than other players available.
IMO I hope we take a S, DL, 2 CB's or 2 WR's (at least 1 of each) and an OL (no earlier than the 3rd) in the top 100.

This minus OL in the early rounds. C is deep and could fall so it might happen though.

I agree. I don't want to take an OL that early. I'd prefer to take Bodine in the 5th to play G or C in case Killgore fails. But if Baalke has serious doubts about getting a Iupati deal done, I could see us taking his replacement in the 3rd this year so that we're not starting a rookie next year.

I hope we sign Goodwin to a vet min.

Originally posted by juycho:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by juycho:

Originally posted by KID9R:

Originally posted by captain_planet:

Something I've seen in almost every mock draft in this forum has been pestering me.


We WILL NOT take two CBs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs with our first two picks.
We WILL NOT take two CBs within our first three picks.
We WILL NOT take two WRs within our first three picks.

We have other needs (interior line, middle linebacker, safety) that also must be addressed.
But what about 2010? You say. We took two offensive linemen with our first two picks!
Shush. That was an exception based on an extreme need, and tackle and guard are two different positions.
Baalke will spread our first 3-5 picks to cover our various needs before he repeats a position.
I guarantee it.

We SHOULD not take an ILB with any of our top 100 picks. Why? Because best case scenario is that he plays until Bowman is healthy and then never starts again. Seems like a waste of a third round pick. IMO they will sign a vet ILB like Desmond Bishop after the draft for cheap and let him compete for the job.
We SHOULD draft 2 CB's in the top 100 but not necessarily one in the 1st. IMO the draft seems a lot deeper at CB than WR. (still deep at WR though like everyone says) So it would seem more prudent to take the best player available at 30 (still a need position though) like S, CB, WR, DL. Then take advantage of the deep CB class by taking 2 CB's in the top 100 or top 61 if they're graded out there. Or 2 WR's in the top 100 If there graded higher than other players available.
IMO I hope we take a S, DL, 2 CB's or 2 WR's (at least 1 of each) and an OL (no earlier than the 3rd) in the top 100.

This minus OL in the early rounds. C is deep and could fall so it might happen though.

I agree. I don't want to take an OL that early. I'd prefer to take Bodine in the 5th to play G or C in case Killgore fails. But if Baalke has serious doubts about getting a Iupati deal done, I could see us taking his replacement in the 3rd this year so that we're not starting a rookie next year.

I hope we sign Goodwin to a vet min.

No way. It's time to move on. Kilgore could be a cheap upgrade.

Mel Kiper is that you???

Originally posted by JimHarbaugh:

Living in Utah I have watched Keith McGill a lot. He is not a 2nd round talent. The dude looks awesome physically, and its easy to be enamored over his measurables. But he is not a great FB player.

I started watching film, and had to turn it off. He's trash

Originally posted by solidg2000:

IMO K Benjamin has bust written all over him. The earliest I'd consider him would be the 4th. Btw same goes for J Landry.

The 4th??!?!?!?!??! And Landry?! The guy is a Boldin clone on tape. Benjamin is so physically unique. If he's there in the second, we'll trade up to get him. We'll probably consider him very seriously in the 1st. So f'n physically dominant

Originally posted by MC9BEAT:

It's rare in the nfl when a player out jumps somebody for the ball in the end zone. Most fade pattern td's have nothing to do with height and evreything to do with placement of the ball. The pass Kap threw was underthrown by 3 feet and shouldn't have been thrown anyway. A fade pattern from about the 18 yard line to a receiver covered step for step - not a good idea. We had a wide open receiver on the other side of the field.

Stalling in the red zone is about offensive philosophy not the lack of leapers in the receiving core.

QB's have more room to place the ball on fades with bigger receivers. It's a joke to me that people think Kaepernick would've placed the ball in the same place to a bigger receiver. Yes, it was a poor throw, but the ball would have been placed differently to a receiver 4 inches taller than Crabtree with longer arms. I'll agree that vertical jump is overrated on fades because receivers generally don't get close to their standing vertical especially if they need to land in bounds, but height and arm length are definitely factors. Jimmy Graham caught 16 TD's largely because of his size and ability to box out defenders. Benjamin isn't quite that big, but he's not far off and would be a nightmare for most DB's to guard in the redzone. Huge, physical receivers like Calvin Johnson (who has much shorter arms than Benjamin) take up double teams a lot near the end zone which can open up teammates or the running game as well and doesn't show up in stats.

I don't think we should take Benjamin at 30, but he would give our offense something we don't really have. Baldwin has size and jumping but he's been a bust and he was not even a red zone threat in college (16 TD's in 3 seasons with only 5 as a junior compared to 19 TD's in 2 seasons with 15 as a sophomore for Benjamin). It's unfair to knock Benjamin because another tall receiver who can jump has not done well in the NFL.