49ers Targeting Mike Evans?

jarvis landry>ODB

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Nobody is doubting his talent but are you seriously going to argue that Atlanta is better off with Jones instead of Torrey Smith, Richard Sherman, Brandon Boykin, Cam Jordan and more???


The impact of a guy like Jones is limited compared to all the other players they could have obtained with those picks.

Thats some of the silliest logic Ive heard in a while.

There is a simple fact of WR drafting in the NFL ... the vast vast vast majority of top 10 performing WRs are taken in the first half of the first round. That is not always true certainly, but it is mostly true, and it is true for WR more than any other position. If you want the best shot at a stud WR you need to take them early in the first.

The gap between Evans and Benjamin is huge. There is plenty of debate about Benjamins dedication to the game, his football intelligence, and his age ... those do not apply to Evans. Evans is no sure thing, but it is certain his ceiling is far higher than Benjamin's.

Originally posted by natrone06:
Thats some of the silliest logic Ive heard in a while.

???

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Obviously, all those guys > Jones, but that's only with hindsight... ATL wouldn't have drafted all those guys. They would have bombed a pick or two or three.

You don't know that. That is the potential of what those picks represented. Now we are talking about an even deeper draft than that one. Giving up on 4 or 5 potential starters for a guy who could be a bust for all anyone knows, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The whole "homerun trade up" is rarely successful. It's great for the fanbase, it gets the buzz going, but has it brought Atlanta a Superbowl? Has it gotten them to a Superbowl even? They were already a winning team before Jones showed up. Making that trade only left them with poor depth all across their defense.

Originally posted by natrone06:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Nobody is doubting his talent but are you seriously going to argue that Atlanta is better off with Jones instead of Torrey Smith, Richard Sherman, Brandon Boykin, Cam Jordan and more???


The impact of a guy like Jones is limited compared to all the other players they could have obtained with those picks.

Thats some of the silliest logic Ive heard in a while.

Is it? I think the logic is sound. I'd rather have that group of players than just one guy. Jones is good, but Jerry Rice he is not.

No guarantee Atlanta takes those exact players, but the point is you probably won't pick a player that's worth giving up 5 draft picks for (1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th) , unless you get a franchise QB in return.

Originally posted by mrwoodz:
If the question is would we move up to top 5 - then I could be convinced by that. Suggesting we would move up to top 5 for Evans seems a stretch though. Nothing against him, but I have seen barely any mock have him go top 5.

I'd expect that a move to the top 5 would be if someone unexpectedly didn't go top 4 (Watkins, Clowney, Mack, etc) which could happen if the top teams decide to address QB needs at start of draft after all.

Basically, I would expect us to have options in place to adapt to what happens on the day, and we could move up for any one of various positions. If our staff are convinced any one player is who they really want, we can make the move. It doesn't necessarily have to be CB or WR when most experts are telling us it is a deep class at those positions. We could go after a pass rusher (with or without Aldon staying) or a D-Line guy depending on the team view on Tank, Dorsey, Williams, Dial, etc, or a Safety,

What we say publically about keeping players is often a lie, but Baalke has said best teams draft ahead of need, so whoever we draft could be seen as a long term solution, and not necessarily an immediate one. (But, a move to top 5 would have to be for an immediate option.)

I think the idea is that many mocks have Evans going 7 overall to the Bucs to pair with Vincent Jackson for McNown (ala Brandon Marshall/Alshon Jeffries in Chicago), so moving up would require getting past them.

I'd understand if the Raiders would be interested, as well as the Niners looking into it:

1. Raiders have very few picks, and have no depth/youth behind their "veteran starters", so the whole "value chart" could get skewed by the fact that they NEED picks. For them, being able to get more picks to rebuild their team structure is more valuable rather than having 1 good player and then rely on over-the-hill players and overpaying mid-level guys. As the NFC West has done, best way to fix a bad team is through the draft, and now the Raiders need quantity on the cheap.

2. Niners have two heavy needs in WR/CB, medium needs in DL depth/Safety depth, and low needs at QB depth/OG depth. With 11 picks, they really only need 1 premiere WR, 2 CBs who can play man-to-man/press coverage, and some depth at QB. Also, wouldn't mind taking a flyer on DL project with Tomsula. All other positions have depth and talent, so for total, we'd probably only need to keep 4-5 guys out of the 11 picks, so why not get the best value versus quantity that we will just cut or put on practice squad to get picked up?


So now, you have a guy in Evans, a 6'5 WR who runs a 4.4 40 whose specialty is the jump ball, and lets not forget he's a great improv WR who constantly got open for the most infamous scrambler in college football in Johnny Football...just imagine what'd Evans could do for Kaep when he leaves the pocket (not to mention are we sure Crabtree will come back?) and provide a true red zone threat we've lacked for YEARS!

But, even after all this pro "trade up for Evans" talk, I really doubt it occurs, mainly b/c we'd have to have this happen:

1. Clowney, Robinson, Mack, and Watkins would have to be gone. If any of them are there, even though Raiders need quantity, no team should ever pass up a premiere talent to build their team around for a few extra picks.

2. Raiders would have to have low grades on Matthews/Lewan and all the QBs. If the value isn't there for them at 5, better to get more than settle for less.

3. Niners would have to probably give up their 1st, a 2nd, a 3rd, a 7th, and next years 1st to get even close to the "Raider value", most likely probably would have to be more, but that cash-crop could be too enticing for the Raiders to pass up. We'd still have a 2nd (CB), two 3rds (CB and pass rusher), 4th (DL project), 5th (BPA), and a few 7ths (BPAs). If we give up next years first, then we'd have to expect high dividends in being at #32 .

4. Our grade on the "top tier" CBs must be low and have 2nd/3rd round talent we believe ready to play and take over.


Overall, as much as I'd like Evans as a Niner, I'd rather trade up to the teens for ODB (proven product and ST superstar) and still keep both 2nds (a 3rd and 4th should help move up to #16 (Cowboys) or #17 (Ravens) from #30) for good CB depth/talent.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I guess it's a matter of opinion... ATL took a dive because of Jones' injury. When he's healthy, he's one of the best in the game.

Nobody is doubting his talent but are you seriously going to argue that Atlanta is better off with Jones instead of Torrey Smith, Richard Sherman, Brandon Boykin, Cam Jordan and more???


The impact of a guy like Jones is limited compared to all the other players they could have obtained with those picks.

Of course, no single team drafted all of these players. The Ravens, Seahawks, Eagles, and Saints did. It is completely unrealistic to even suggest that the Falcons would have hit on all of those picks.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Obviously, all those guys > Jones, but that's only with hindsight... ATL wouldn't have drafted all those guys. They would have bombed a pick or two or three.

You don't know that. That is the potential of what those picks represented. Now we are talking about an even deeper draft than that one. Giving up on 4 or 5 potential starters for a guy who could be a bust for all anyone knows, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The whole "homerun trade up" is rarely successful. It's great for the fanbase, it gets the buzz going, but has it brought Atlanta a Superbowl? Has it gotten them to a Superbowl even? They were already a winning team before Jones showed up. Making that trade only left them with poor depth all across their defense.

Your point seems to be that the "homerun trade up" is not successful because you trade away draft picks that could be used for other positions. This doesn't seem as important when you have the ammunition to trade up AND you are left with draft picks in just about every round. Remember, the 49ers have 6 picks in the top 100. It seems to be a completely viable option to used several of these picks to trade up for whoever we want, and keep a couple to keep the pipelines flowing with youth so to speak.

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:

Originally posted by mrwoodz:
If the question is would we move up to top 5 - then I could be convinced by that. Suggesting we would move up to top 5 for Evans seems a stretch though. Nothing against him, but I have seen barely any mock have him go top 5.

I'd expect that a move to the top 5 would be if someone unexpectedly didn't go top 4 (Watkins, Clowney, Mack, etc) which could happen if the top teams decide to address QB needs at start of draft after all.

Basically, I would expect us to have options in place to adapt to what happens on the day, and we could move up for any one of various positions. If our staff are convinced any one player is who they really want, we can make the move. It doesn't necessarily have to be CB or WR when most experts are telling us it is a deep class at those positions. We could go after a pass rusher (with or without Aldon staying) or a D-Line guy depending on the team view on Tank, Dorsey, Williams, Dial, etc, or a Safety,

What we say publically about keeping players is often a lie, but Baalke has said best teams draft ahead of need, so whoever we draft could be seen as a long term solution, and not necessarily an immediate one. (But, a move to top 5 would have to be for an immediate option.)

I think the idea is that many mocks have Evans going 7 overall to the Bucs to pair with Vincent Jackson for McNown (ala Brandon Marshall/Alshon Jeffries in Chicago), so moving up would require getting past them.

I'd understand if the Raiders would be interested, as well as the Niners looking into it:

1. Raiders have very few picks, and have no depth/youth behind their "veteran starters", so the whole "value chart" could get skewed by the fact that they NEED picks. For them, being able to get more picks to rebuild their team structure is more valuable rather than having 1 good player and then rely on over-the-hill players and overpaying mid-level guys. As the NFC West has done, best way to fix a bad team is through the draft, and now the Raiders need quantity on the cheap.

2. Niners have two heavy needs in WR/CB, medium needs in DL depth/Safety depth, and low needs at QB depth/OG depth. With 11 picks, they really only need 1 premiere WR, 2 CBs who can play man-to-man/press coverage, and some depth at QB. Also, wouldn't mind taking a flyer on DL project with Tomsula. All other positions have depth and talent, so for total, we'd probably only need to keep 4-5 guys out of the 11 picks, so why not get the best value versus quantity that we will just cut or put on practice squad to get picked up?


So now, you have a guy in Evans, a 6'5 WR who runs a 4.4 40 whose specialty is the jump ball, and lets not forget he's a great improv WR who constantly got open for the most infamous scrambler in college football in Johnny Football...just imagine what'd Evans could do for Kaep when he leaves the pocket (not to mention are we sure Crabtree will come back?) and provide a true red zone threat we've lacked for YEARS!

But, even after all this pro "trade up for Evans" talk, I really doubt it occurs, mainly b/c we'd have to have this happen:

1. Clowney, Robinson, Mack, and Watkins would have to be gone. If any of them are there, even though Raiders need quantity, no team should ever pass up a premiere talent to build their team around for a few extra picks.

2. Raiders would have to have low grades on Matthews/Lewan and all the QBs. If the value isn't there for them at 5, better to get more than settle for less.

3. Niners would have to probably give up their 1st, a 2nd, a 3rd, a 7th, and next years 1st to get even close to the "Raider value", most likely probably would have to be more, but that cash-crop could be too enticing for the Raiders to pass up. We'd still have a 2nd (CB), two 3rds (CB and pass rusher), 4th (DL project), 5th (BPA), and a few 7ths (BPAs). If we give up next years first, then we'd have to expect high dividends in being at #32 .

4. Our grade on the "top tier" CBs must be low and have 2nd/3rd round talent we believe ready to play and take over.


Overall, as much as I'd like Evans as a Niner, I'd rather trade up to the teens for ODB (proven product and ST superstar) and still keep both 2nds (a 3rd and 4th should help move up to #16 (Cowboys) or #17 (Ravens) from #30) for good CB depth/talent.

I agree that it is more likely that we trade up 10 spots and not 25 spots. I know ODB is a webzone favorite, but I also see on of the CB's or Lee as other potential targets.

I would suggest that another significant factor in this discussion is that we simply don't have that many roster spots to fill at this point. It's going to be very hard for more than 5-6 rookies to make this roster. If we pick 11 players, there is a good chance that 5 of them hit waivers before the season starts. Look at the draft picks like "ammunition" that we can use to maneuver the board however we see fit. If that means a significant trade up, than so be it.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by natrone06:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Nobody is doubting his talent but are you seriously going to argue that Atlanta is better off with Jones instead of Torrey Smith, Richard Sherman, Brandon Boykin, Cam Jordan and more???


The impact of a guy like Jones is limited compared to all the other players they could have obtained with those picks.

Thats some of the silliest logic Ive heard in a while.

Is it? I think the logic is sound. I'd rather have that group of players than just one guy. Jones is good, but Jerry Rice he is not.

No guarantee Atlanta takes those exact players, but the point is you probably won't pick a player that's worth giving up 5 draft picks for (1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th) , unless you get a franchise QB in return.

Phil Taylor
Greg Little
Owen Marecic
Brandon Weeden
James-Michael Johnson

Supporting your argument that trading up doesn't work by cherry picking the best players they "could" have gotten from the draft class is ludicrous. By that logic all teams should trade down constantly and stock pile picks because they will only select all pros.

Above is the list of players Cleveland actually selected with the traded picks. Was it worth it? Debatable, but as shown above the draft is a crap shoot. If you are fairly certain about a prospect then a some amount of trading up makes sense.

Originally posted by Wisconsin49erfan:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Obviously, all those guys > Jones, but that's only with hindsight... ATL wouldn't have drafted all those guys. They would have bombed a pick or two or three.

You don't know that. That is the potential of what those picks represented. Now we are talking about an even deeper draft than that one. Giving up on 4 or 5 potential starters for a guy who could be a bust for all anyone knows, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The whole "homerun trade up" is rarely successful. It's great for the fanbase, it gets the buzz going, but has it brought Atlanta a Superbowl? Has it gotten them to a Superbowl even? They were already a winning team before Jones showed up. Making that trade only left them with poor depth all across their defense.

Your point seems to be that the "homerun trade up" is not successful because you trade away draft picks that could be used for other positions. This doesn't seem as important when you have the ammunition to trade up AND you are left with draft picks in just about every round. Remember, the 49ers have 6 picks in the top 100. It seems to be a completely viable option to used several of these picks to trade up for whoever we want, and keep a couple to keep the pipelines flowing with youth so to speak.

I agree, our draft capital affords us the potential for that kind of trade, but it's by no means a sure thing.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:

Originally posted by Wisconsin49erfan:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Obviously, all those guys > Jones, but that's only with hindsight... ATL wouldn't have drafted all those guys. They would have bombed a pick or two or three.

You don't know that. That is the potential of what those picks represented. Now we are talking about an even deeper draft than that one. Giving up on 4 or 5 potential starters for a guy who could be a bust for all anyone knows, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The whole "homerun trade up" is rarely successful. It's great for the fanbase, it gets the buzz going, but has it brought Atlanta a Superbowl? Has it gotten them to a Superbowl even? They were already a winning team before Jones showed up. Making that trade only left them with poor depth all across their defense.

Your point seems to be that the "homerun trade up" is not successful because you trade away draft picks that could be used for other positions. This doesn't seem as important when you have the ammunition to trade up AND you are left with draft picks in just about every round. Remember, the 49ers have 6 picks in the top 100. It seems to be a completely viable option to used several of these picks to trade up for whoever we want, and keep a couple to keep the pipelines flowing with youth so to speak.

I agree, our draft capital affords us the potential for that kind of trade, but it's by no means a sure thing.

It is a risky strategy. There are draft busts in the top 10 all the time.

Originally posted by Wisconsin49erfan:
It is a risky strategy. There are draft busts in the top 10 all the time.

After the 2012 draft, another bad pick could cripple this franchise long-term. The key to success in the NFL is consistently drafting for 2-3 years in the future, people tend to only look at immediate needs, but looking at replacing guys down the road is how you keep a winning team together. If you draft one guy, he may or may not be a bust, if you draft 5 or 6, you're basically guaranteed to at least hit on a few of those guys. In a draft that is loaded in the middle rounds, I don't see a lot of sense in trading away a bunch of draft capital for a single player.



49ers have needs at CB, WR and need depth at S, C and a few other positions. If there's someone between 15-20 that they like a lot, I imagine that they would trade up for them but I don't see them trading up into the top 10, especially after what happened to Atlanta last season. The only players I think are worth giving up that much draft capital for are a franchise QB or an elite pass rusher.