Is this possible

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Yeah, cutting a guy immediately since the roster is full.

We don't need 13 players. We don't need 11 players. We barely need 7 players.

Yes, I want to add maximum 8 quality players to this roster than take a bunch of mediocre dudes that will get cut or sent to the practice squad in August.

Why does every player must make the roster? No one's picking is that good. What is wrong with guys fighting for a single roster spot?

Trading up, would never let you find guys like Tremaine Brock or Ian Williams, because you would be dumping them for a bigger name and would not let them play for a roster spot (you gave their pick away).

Originally posted by OldJoe:

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Yeah, cutting a guy immediately since the roster is full.

We don't need 13 players. We don't need 11 players. We barely need 7 players.

Yes, I want to add maximum 8 quality players to this roster than take a bunch of mediocre dudes that will get cut or sent to the practice squad in August.

Why does every player must make the roster? No one's picking is that good. What is wrong with guys fighting for a single roster spot?

Trading up, would never let you find guys like Tremaine Brock or Ian Williams, because you would be dumping them for a bigger name and would not let them play for a roster spot (you gave their pick away).

Brock & Williams were an UDFA's, so you just bolstered MY argument, not yours.

You're arguing that "every player" shouldn't necessarily make the roster. That's not how a GM thinks.

A GM thinks with a DRAFT PICK that you are taking a guy that can be a member of the team for the next 3-5 years. You don't just throw 11 darts and hope you hit on 8. You pick players you have researched and believe in.

That's why they trade up. You want guys to fight for practice squad time? UDFA's can do that. Draft picks are valuable currency, not darts.

And I understand you don't want the 49ers to just choose guys at random, but this is why you don't see teams take 4 CB's in a single draft and hope two of them work out. You draft players YOU BELIEVE IN, that you've done your homework on. Because that's what this is about. It's about teams choosing players they believe will help their team for the next 3-5-8 years, not just picking a bunch of dudes and hoping a majority of them make the roster. No one wants to cut a 6th-round-pick in August. That's what UDFA's are for... put em on the practice squad and see if they develop.

8-13 rookies? On an elite team that put 9 guys in the Pro Bowl? That has solid backups in many guys like Lemonier & Wilhoite? With depth & projects like Dorsey/Williams, Skuta, Looney, Spillman, Lattimore? And they already spent a pick on Gabbert? Can't say taking 11 dudes makes sense.

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Brock & Williams were an UDFA's, so you just bolstered MY argument, not yours.

You're arguing that "every player" shouldn't necessarily make the roster. That's not how a GM thinks.

A GM thinks with a DRAFT PICK that you are taking a guy that can be a member of the team for the next 3-5 years. You don't just throw 11 darts and hope you hit on 8. You pick players you have researched and believe in.

That's why they trade up. You want guys to fight for practice squad time? UDFA's can do that. Draft picks are valuable currency, not darts.

And I understand you don't want the 49ers to just choose guys at random, but this is why you don't see teams take 4 CB's in a single draft and hope two of them work out. You draft players YOU BELIEVE IN, that you've done your homework on. Because that's what this is about. It's about teams choosing players they believe will help their team for the next 3-5-8 years, not just picking a bunch of dudes and hoping a majority of them make the roster. No one wants to cut a 6th-round-pick in August. That's what UDFA's are for... put em on the practice squad and see if they develop.

8-13 rookies? On an elite team that put 9 guys in the Pro Bowl? That has solid backups in many guys like Lemonier & Wilhoite? With depth & projects like Dorsey/Williams, Skuta, Looney, Spillman, Lattimore? And they already spent a pick on Gabbert? Can't say taking 11 dudes makes sense.

Why have any UDFA's they just going to not make the roster? How does this bolster your argument of dumping multiple picks for single picks. That won't leave any low end guys that might make the squad, because you "pre-cut" them..

A GM may think all his picks will stay on the squad, but they don't. As long as they keep missing on "can't miss guys" (AJ Jenkins / LMJ) ...

Until we pick perfectly, I prefer multi picks that have to fight it out and don't worry how many we cut.

Originally posted by NickSh49:

Brock & Williams were an UDFA's, so you just bolstered MY argument, not yours.

You're arguing that "every player" shouldn't necessarily make the roster. That's not how a GM thinks.

A GM thinks with a DRAFT PICK that you are taking a guy that can be a member of the team for the next 3-5 years. You don't just throw 11 darts and hope you hit on 8. You pick players you have researched and believe in.

That's why they trade up. You want guys to fight for practice squad time? UDFA's can do that. Draft picks are valuable currency, not darts.

And I understand you don't want the 49ers to just choose guys at random, but this is why you don't see teams take 4 CB's in a single draft and hope two of them work out. You draft players YOU BELIEVE IN, that you've done your homework on. Because that's what this is about. It's about teams choosing players they believe will help their team for the next 3-5-8 years, not just picking a bunch of dudes and hoping a majority of them make the roster. No one wants to cut a 6th-round-pick in August. That's what UDFA's are for... put em on the practice squad and see if they develop.

8-13 rookies? On an elite team that put 9 guys in the Pro Bowl? That has solid backups in many guys like Lemonier & Wilhoite? With depth & projects like Dorsey/Williams, Skuta, Looney, Spillman, Lattimore? And they already spent a pick on Gabbert? Can't say taking 11 dudes makes sense.

To take an extreme and obviously unrealistic example. Why *not* have 11 picks in the 3rd round? Why *not* have 8 picks all in the 2nd round? Yes, you have higher odds of picking an all pro because you are trading up and picking round 1 Pick 1, but there are good players (at least in this draft) that in other years could go round 1 pick 1, but will be pushed to possibly late 1st or early 2nd round somewhere.

In the 1986 draft, other than Bo Jackson who went round 1 pick 1, that first round really didn't *wow* me now looking back at it in hindsight. There were some decent players but none that I know of (somebody correct me) that became Hall of Fame material in that first round draft.

The point being is that a trade down strategy that gets us multiple picks within the first 3 rounds is as valuable in a deep draft as trading up and getting *one* player that is outstanding Hall of Fame potential in a shallow draft. For all indications, this draft is going to be a deep one in the areas we really need depth in, in the first place. Why *not* get *two* or three Eric Wrights instead of just *one* Ronnie Lott, for example. I think a trade down strategy that gets us multiple picks **in the first 3 rounds** is key. If we trade down and get multiple picks *outside* of the 4rth round - then I will be upset.

Originally posted by OldJoe:

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Brock & Williams were an UDFA's, so you just bolstered MY argument, not yours.

You're arguing that "every player" shouldn't necessarily make the roster. That's not how a GM thinks.

A GM thinks with a DRAFT PICK that you are taking a guy that can be a member of the team for the next 3-5 years. You don't just throw 11 darts and hope you hit on 8. You pick players you have researched and believe in.

That's why they trade up. You want guys to fight for practice squad time? UDFA's can do that. Draft picks are valuable currency, not darts.

And I understand you don't want the 49ers to just choose guys at random, but this is why you don't see teams take 4 CB's in a single draft and hope two of them work out. You draft players YOU BELIEVE IN, that you've done your homework on. Because that's what this is about. It's about teams choosing players they believe will help their team for the next 3-5-8 years, not just picking a bunch of dudes and hoping a majority of them make the roster. No one wants to cut a 6th-round-pick in August. That's what UDFA's are for... put em on the practice squad and see if they develop.

8-13 rookies? On an elite team that put 9 guys in the Pro Bowl? That has solid backups in many guys like Lemonier & Wilhoite? With depth & projects like Dorsey/Williams, Skuta, Looney, Spillman, Lattimore? And they already spent a pick on Gabbert? Can't say taking 11 dudes makes sense.

Why have any UDFA's they just going to not make the roster? How does this bolster your argument of dumping multiple picks for single picks. That won't leave any low end guys that might make the squad, because you "pre-cut" them..

A GM may think all his picks will stay on the squad, but they don't. As long as they keep missing on "can't miss guys" (AJ Jenkins / LMJ) ...

Until we pick perfectly, I prefer multi picks that have to fight it out and don't worry how many we cut.

First regarding UDFA's... those don't cost you anything. You're not wasting any opportunity by bringing them onto your squad. All you have to do is call and sign them. You risk nothing.

Draft picks, however, are valuable currency. You use them to get the best players on your team however you see fit. Sometimes, that means moving up. Sometimes, it means moving down.

You're arguing against trading up. I get that. But you and I both know that the more talented players go higher in the draft than lower in the draft. That's a general, accepted fact of life. Yes, there are gems, but really educated people do a lot of homework on who is good and who is bad. The go to the combine. They bring in guys for visits. And yeah, sometimes they miss, but it's not like they don't know what they are doing.

So my arguments are simple... the roster is full and the 49ers want franchise players ready to contribute at the CB & WR positions ASAP. They moved up last year in a similar situation to take Eric Reid instead of spending multiple picks at the position. I believe the same thing will happen this year. There's a lot of logic to it... I believe more logic in adding 11-13 players when the Niners don't need 11-13 players. You use that currency to get BETTER players that you have confidence in contributing on a regular basis.

Originally posted by OldJoe:

Why have any UDFA's they just going to not make the roster? How does this bolster your argument of dumping multiple picks for single picks. That won't leave any low end guys that might make the squad, because you "pre-cut" them..

A GM may think all his picks will stay on the squad, but they don't. As long as they keep missing on "can't miss guys" (AJ Jenkins / LMJ) ...

Until we pick perfectly, I prefer multi picks that have to fight it out and don't worry how many we cut.

Personally I'd like some numbers on the WR side too. I'd be OK if they pick two WR's in the first 3 rounds, but personally, I'd like 4 WR's. We seem to lose WR's around October and November for some reason so I'd like some promising Draftees on hand by that time. Baldwin and Osgood, as far as I'm concerned can be replaced by a good physically talented WR chosen in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. All in all, the reason I want more numbers on the WR side is simply for depth. Seattle and New Orleans seems to relish in taking out and injuring our players.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Brock & Williams were an UDFA's, so you just bolstered MY argument, not yours.

You're arguing that "every player" shouldn't necessarily make the roster. That's not how a GM thinks.

A GM thinks with a DRAFT PICK that you are taking a guy that can be a member of the team for the next 3-5 years. You don't just throw 11 darts and hope you hit on 8. You pick players you have researched and believe in.

That's why they trade up. You want guys to fight for practice squad time? UDFA's can do that. Draft picks are valuable currency, not darts.

And I understand you don't want the 49ers to just choose guys at random, but this is why you don't see teams take 4 CB's in a single draft and hope two of them work out. You draft players YOU BELIEVE IN, that you've done your homework on. Because that's what this is about. It's about teams choosing players they believe will help their team for the next 3-5-8 years, not just picking a bunch of dudes and hoping a majority of them make the roster. No one wants to cut a 6th-round-pick in August. That's what UDFA's are for... put em on the practice squad and see if they develop.

8-13 rookies? On an elite team that put 9 guys in the Pro Bowl? That has solid backups in many guys like Lemonier & Wilhoite? With depth & projects like Dorsey/Williams, Skuta, Looney, Spillman, Lattimore? And they already spent a pick on Gabbert? Can't say taking 11 dudes makes sense.

To take an extreme and obviously unrealistic example. Why *not* have 11 picks in the 3rd round? Why *not* have 8 picks all in the 2nd round? Yes, you have higher odds of picking an all pro because you are trading up and picking round 1 Pick 1, but there are good players (at least in this draft) that in other years could go round 1 pick 1, but will be pushed to possibly late 1st or early 2nd round somewhere.

In the 1986 draft, other than Bo Jackson who went round 1 pick 1, that first round really didn't *wow* me now looking back at it in hindsight. There were some decent players but none that I know of (somebody correct me) that became Hall of Fame material in that first round draft.

The point being is that a trade down strategy that gets us multiple picks within the first 3 rounds is as valuable in a deep draft as trading up and getting *one* player that is outstanding Hall of Fame potential in a shallow draft. For all indications, this draft is going to be a deep one in the areas we really need depth in, in the first place. Why *not* get *two* or three Eric Wrights instead of just *one* Ronnie Lott, for example. I think a trade down strategy that gets us multiple picks **in the first 3 rounds** is key. If we trade down and get multiple picks *outside* of the 4rth round - then I will be upset.

Because that's unrealistic. Go back to my thread where I talk about receivers taken after the 1st round.

You can have one AJ Green or you can have two Ryan Broyles. I know that's an extreme example, and you can find guys like Alshon Jeffrey in the second, but the draft doesn't always work out that way.

The Niners will assign grades to players based on their talent. You guys know this. If they move up in Round 1 TO TAKE THE PLAYER THEY WANT, that's a success for them.

Now, using your guys' logic, we're talking more players at lower grades, correct? OK, now you're saying move down or stay put. OK fine, but now not only are you getting less-talented players, but you're also compromising by taking whatever player falls to you. You don't have the freedom to say, "Hey, THIS is the guy we want. THIS is the guy we did our homework on. THIS is the guy that we brought to Santa Clara for meetings and we believe in him. Let's go get him."

Instead, you're saying, "Let's take whatever player we like the most at our spot and hope for the best." Does that mean that player won't be any good? Nope, but you lose the freedom to CHOOSE who you want.

That's what I think moving up is all about. The 49ers want to CHOOSE their franchise player for the next 3-5-8 years, and they have the ammo to do it. They don't want to sit at #30 and move down and hope they player they want falls to them. Because that is what you guys are essentially arguing... wait and hope for the best. I'm arguing they're going to be proactive and take who they actually want on the team.

You can hope you take two Eric Reid's, but there are no guarantees that two Reid's will fall to you later in the draft. Moving up ensures you get the you really want, whether he busts or goes to the Pro Bowl. You make an informed decision and take the desired player.

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Because that's unrealistic. Go back to my thread where I talk about receivers taken after the 1st round.

You can have one AJ Green or you can have two Ryan Broyles. I know that's an extreme example, and you can find guys like Alshon Jeffrey in the second, but the draft doesn't always work out that way.

The Niners will assign grades to players based on their talent. You guys know this. If they move up in Round 1 TO TAKE THE PLAYER THEY WANT, that's a success for them.

Now, using your guys' logic, we're talking more players at lower grades, correct? OK, now you're saying move down or stay put. OK fine, but now not only are you getting less-talented players, but you're also compromising by taking whatever player falls to you. You don't have the freedom to say, "Hey, THIS is the guy we want. THIS is the guy we did our homework on. THIS is the guy that we brought to Santa Clara for meetings and we believe in him. Let's go get him."

Instead, you're saying, "Let's take whatever player we like the most at our spot and hope for the best." Does that mean that player won't be any good? Nope, but you lose the freedom to CHOOSE who you want.

That's what I think moving up is all about. The 49ers want to CHOOSE their franchise player for the next 3-5-8 years, and they have the ammo to do it. They don't want to sit at #30 and move down and hope they player they want falls to them. Because that is what you guys are essentially arguing... wait and hope for the best. I'm arguing they're going to be proactive and take who they actually want on the team.

You can hope you take two Eric Reid's, but there are no guarantees that two Reid's will fall to you later in the draft. Moving up ensures you get the you really want, whether he busts or goes to the Pro Bowl. You make an informed decision and take the desired player.

But your presumption is your packaging for someone who won't miss, but he could. As long as we pick: AJ/LMJ/Rashaun Woods/K. Balmer ... I don't want to take two picks and get one of these guys. You cite the guys that "hit" (Reid) but, I cite the misses, which then is not a single miss but multiple misses (from packaged picks).

Trading down gives you more chances on injured guys also. I think Carradine and Lattimore would have gone this year one, two and we only paid 2 and 4.

I tend to argue trading down (most of the time). But it takes trading partners. Most years plenty want to move up, this year seems the opposite.

I could see us moving up if the price we right and we suspect we might lose a player a few selections ahead of us.

I really trust Baalke. I suspect he may go after more injured guys. No one knows if that strategy will pan out, if Carradine and Lattimore do real well, then this copycat league with go after the injured more than before, but we still have this draft in front of the realization of this selection strategy. So we have one more year to fish for the injured.

He has so much to work with that we should be in good shape "to get his guys".

Originally posted by NickSh49:

Because that's unrealistic. Go back to my thread where I talk about receivers taken after the 1st round.

You can have one AJ Green or you can have two Ryan Broyles. I know that's an extreme example, and you can find guys like Alshon Jeffrey in the second, but the draft doesn't always work out that way.

The Niners will assign grades to players based on their talent. You guys know this. If they move up in Round 1 TO TAKE THE PLAYER THEY WANT, that's a success for them.

Now, using your guys' logic, we're talking more players at lower grades, correct? OK, now you're saying move down or stay put. OK fine, but now not only are you getting less-talented players, but you're also compromising by taking whatever player falls to you. You don't have the freedom to say, "Hey, THIS is the guy we want. THIS is the guy we did our homework on. THIS is the guy that we brought to Santa Clara for meetings and we believe in him. Let's go get him."

Instead, you're saying, "Let's take whatever player we like the most at our spot and hope for the best." Does that mean that player won't be any good? Nope, but you lose the freedom to CHOOSE who you want.

That's what I think moving up is all about. The 49ers want to CHOOSE their franchise player for the next 3-5-8 years, and they have the ammo to do it. They don't want to sit at #30 and move down and hope they player they want falls to them. Because that is what you guys are essentially arguing... wait and hope for the best. I'm arguing they're going to be proactive and take who they actually want on the team.

You can hope you take two Eric Reid's, but there are no guarantees that two Reid's will fall to you later in the draft. Moving up ensures you get the you really want, whether he busts or goes to the Pro Bowl. You make an informed decision and take the desired player.

That's a valid point, but it rests on the assumption that the front office's ability to evaluate talent is *better* than the rest of the NFL. Is that a realistic assumption? If it is, then you win the argument, but if it isn't, then throwing a bit more bodies and numbers at the problem is as good as throwing more effort in talent evaluation for trading up.

Why not combine *both* and throw both *numbers* AND *talent* evaluation at the problem by doing the homework on 2nd rounders and below, and at the same time evaluating the first rounders of course, but doing more homework on the lower rounders and get yourself in position to draft multiple *good* (but not great) 2nd rounder's and below. Now you got the best of both worlds. You've done your homework on the players that will fall to 2nd and 3rd rounds and at the same time, you have control because you have *multiple* picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to move up down and all around in those rounds.

Originally posted by NickSh49:
If you're going to have to cut 5 of your 13 rookies, what was the point of drafting them in the first place?

Edit--removed snarky comments! Trying to be a kinder, gentler poster! LOL!

In other words, having thirteen really competitive young guys fighting for roster spots is probably more helpful in the long run than having four young guys fighting for those spaces...or thirteen mediocre guys.

I would agree with you that some picks could/should be traded forward but this is a very deep draft for WRs and CBs, two of the niners biggest needs. I would like to see some overkill in selecting for these two positions so the team is more likely to select quality that can make a difference.

Originally posted by OldJoe:

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Because that's unrealistic. Go back to my thread where I talk about receivers taken after the 1st round.

You can have one AJ Green or you can have two Ryan Broyles. I know that's an extreme example, and you can find guys like Alshon Jeffrey in the second, but the draft doesn't always work out that way.

The Niners will assign grades to players based on their talent. You guys know this. If they move up in Round 1 TO TAKE THE PLAYER THEY WANT, that's a success for them.

Now, using your guys' logic, we're talking more players at lower grades, correct? OK, now you're saying move down or stay put. OK fine, but now not only are you getting less-talented players, but you're also compromising by taking whatever player falls to you. You don't have the freedom to say, "Hey, THIS is the guy we want. THIS is the guy we did our homework on. THIS is the guy that we brought to Santa Clara for meetings and we believe in him. Let's go get him."

Instead, you're saying, "Let's take whatever player we like the most at our spot and hope for the best." Does that mean that player won't be any good? Nope, but you lose the freedom to CHOOSE who you want.

That's what I think moving up is all about. The 49ers want to CHOOSE their franchise player for the next 3-5-8 years, and they have the ammo to do it. They don't want to sit at #30 and move down and hope they player they want falls to them. Because that is what you guys are essentially arguing... wait and hope for the best. I'm arguing they're going to be proactive and take who they actually want on the team.

You can hope you take two Eric Reid's, but there are no guarantees that two Reid's will fall to you later in the draft. Moving up ensures you get the you really want, whether he busts or goes to the Pro Bowl. You make an informed decision and take the desired player.

But your presumption is your packaging for someone who won't miss, but he could. As long as we pick: AJ/LMJ/Rashaun Woods/K. Balmer ... I don't want to take two picks and get one of these guys. You cite the guys that "hit" (Reid) but, I cite the misses, which then is not a single miss but multiple misses (from packaged picks).

It's not that I don't think Baalke & Co. will miss. It's that I don't think the past misses will change the way Baalke & Co. draft. And I think they'll draft with confidence and take the guy they believe in.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by NickSh49:
Because that's unrealistic. Go back to my thread where I talk about receivers taken after the 1st round.

You can have one AJ Green or you can have two Ryan Broyles. I know that's an extreme example, and you can find guys like Alshon Jeffrey in the second, but the draft doesn't always work out that way.

The Niners will assign grades to players based on their talent. You guys know this. If they move up in Round 1 TO TAKE THE PLAYER THEY WANT, that's a success for them.

Now, using your guys' logic, we're talking more players at lower grades, correct? OK, now you're saying move down or stay put. OK fine, but now not only are you getting less-talented players, but you're also compromising by taking whatever player falls to you. You don't have the freedom to say, "Hey, THIS is the guy we want. THIS is the guy we did our homework on. THIS is the guy that we brought to Santa Clara for meetings and we believe in him. Let's go get him."

Instead, you're saying, "Let's take whatever player we like the most at our spot and hope for the best." Does that mean that player won't be any good? Nope, but you lose the freedom to CHOOSE who you want.

That's what I think moving up is all about. The 49ers want to CHOOSE their franchise player for the next 3-5-8 years, and they have the ammo to do it. They don't want to sit at #30 and move down and hope they player they want falls to them. Because that is what you guys are essentially arguing... wait and hope for the best. I'm arguing they're going to be proactive and take who they actually want on the team.

You can hope you take two Eric Reid's, but there are no guarantees that two Reid's will fall to you later in the draft. Moving up ensures you get the you really want, whether he busts or goes to the Pro Bowl. You make an informed decision and take the desired player.

That's a valid point, but it rests on the assumption that the front office's ability to evaluate talent is *better* than the rest of the NFL. Is that a realistic assumption? If it is, then you win the argument, but if it isn't, then throwing a bit more bodies and numbers at the problem is as good as throwing more effort in talent evaluation for trading up.

Why not combine *both* and throw both *numbers* AND *talent* evaluation at the problem by doing the homework on 2nd rounders and below, and at the same time evaluating the first rounders of course, but doing more homework on the lower rounders and get yourself in position to draft multiple *good* (but not great) 2nd rounder's and below. Now you got the best of both worlds. You've done your homework on the players that will fall to 2nd and 3rd rounds and at the same time, you have control because you have *multiple* picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to move up down and all around in those rounds.

I'm not sure where that came from. How does that relate to the notion that the 49ers want to find a trade partner so they can take the guy they believe in? Again, I think you're coming from this from the standpoint that "the Niners are going to miss on their draft picks, so more guys therefore are better." I think that's a defeatist attitude. And the problem, again, is that NFL front offices don't draft scared. They don't hedge their bets that way. They do research and make informed decisions about the best way to improve their football team.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/178030-49ers-draft-prediction-picks-then-updated-espn-reports/page2/

If you go to Post #18 on that page, you'll see where I broke down the difference between first-round WR's and WR's taken in rounds 2-7. The chances of finding a true franchise player at WR beyond Round 1 are slim. Now, your counter to that argument is that first round receivers bust as well, which is valid.

However, again, my argument is that even if you go "more bodies" over "one guy with supposed talent" is that you could easily get a Ryan Broyles and a Brian Quick in the second round instead of simply a Dez Bryant.

I think we'll go around in circles here... you think we should hedge our bets, and I think they should go all-in on one.

But the crux of my argument is that the more talented players are in Round 1, so why not take the more talented player you have the most confidence in instead of compromising in the second round with players who are not as highly graded?

Cause again, if you wait or trade down, that's what you are doing. You are compromising and hoping for the best. You are simply not adding the most talented players to your roster. You're taking players with a lower grade and hoping they play above their supposed potential.

And isn't that what drafting AJ Jenkins was by the way? Taking a player that was supposedly better than advertised? That didn't work out so well, and I think the 49ers would rather move up and take a more touted prospect than spend more picks on lesser players.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by NickSh49:
If you're going to have to cut 5 of your 13 rookies, what was the point of drafting them in the first place?

Edit--removed snarky comments! Trying to be a kinder, gentler poster! LOL!

In other words, having thirteen really competitive young guys fighting for roster spots is probably more helpful in the long run than having four young guys fighting for those spaces...or thirteen mediocre guys.

But then you're asking those players to develop and show their talent in less than four months time this summer!?! We don't have the space to keep all 13!!


So what you're saying is "let's take ALL these dudes, throw them in camp, and figure out who is dope and who is not in a super small window of time." Meanwhile, the guys who get cut in August will go play for other teams.

It's just not realistic with the roster the 49ers have now. The numbers just don't work out. It is dumb to spend 13 picks on new players when you don't have the space on the roster to develop them properly. You're throwing them all into practice and expecting to figure out who is good and who is crap in record time. That's not a good plan.

Originally posted by NickSh49:

I'm not sure where that came from. How does that relate to the notion that the 49ers want to find a trade partner so they can take the guy they believe in? Again, I think you're coming from this from the standpoint that "the Niners are going to miss on their draft picks, so more guys therefore are better." I think that's a defeatist attitude. And the problem, again, is that NFL front offices don't draft scared. They don't hedge their bets that way. They do research and make informed decisions about the best way to improve their football team.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl-draft/178030-49ers-draft-prediction-picks-then-updated-espn-reports/page2/

If you go to Post #18 on that page, you'll see where I broke down the difference between first-round WR's and WR's taken in rounds 2-7. The chances of finding a true franchise player at WR beyond Round 1 are slim. Now, your counter to that argument is that first round receivers bust as well, which is valid.

However, again, my argument is that even if you go "more bodies" over "one guy with supposed talent" is that you could easily get a Ryan Broyles and a Brian Quick in the second round instead of simply a Dez Bryant.

I think we'll go around in circles here... you think we should hedge our bets, and I think they should go all-in on one.

But the crux of my argument is that the more talented players are in Round 1, so why not take the more talented player you have the most confidence in instead of compromising in the second round with players who are not as highly graded?

Cause again, if you wait or trade down, that's what you are doing. You are compromising and hoping for the best. You are simply not adding the most talented players to your roster. You're taking players with a lower grade and hoping they play above their supposed potential.

And isn't that what drafting AJ Jenkins was by the way? Taking a player that was supposedly better than advertised? That didn't work out so well, and I think the 49ers would rather move up and take a more touted prospect than spend more picks on lesser players.

I read it. Interesting that they didn't take a WR in the first round last year. Patton was a 4rth round pick.

The counter-argument to this is that first-round guys bust just as often.

That is my point. First round picks don't always make it either. Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick. Charles Haley was a 4rth. So what does all this have to do with Talent Evaluation? Talent evaluation is the heart of a General Managers job. It determines whether or not he'll stay at his pick, trade up or trade down. The best GM's are the best talent evaluators. So any trade up or trade down, to be successful, you have to have great talent evaluation skills.

The strategy of trading down is to assume that you aren't going to be 100% successful at talent evaluation and I think it's more rooted in reality. I think that's a valid strategy. Trading up (or in the case of AJ Jenkins *not* trading down) can be making a big mistake in talent evaluation. It can happen to any GM. I think if you have a positional weakness that has been historically a positional weakness for a long time, I don't see why trading down and putting some numbers at that position, as well as putting more work in to evaluate those draftees isn't a viable strategy.

Originally posted by NickSh49:

But then you're asking those players to develop and show their talent in less than four months time this summer!?! We don't have the space to keep all 13!!


So what you're saying is "let's take ALL these dudes, throw them in camp, and figure out who is dope and who is not in a super small window of time." Meanwhile, the guys who get cut in August will go play for other teams.

It's just not realistic with the roster the 49ers have now. The numbers just don't work out. It is dumb to spend 13 picks on new players when you don't have the space on the roster to develop them properly. You're throwing them all into practice and expecting to figure out who is good and who is crap in record time. That's not a good plan.

First of all, if we draft well, we're going to cut players who can play in the NFL and are pretty much certain to go to another team and do well anyway. Case in point Ed McCaffrey. We cut him after 1994 because we were loaded at WR and he goes on to play for Denver for a very successful career.

Second, the fact that you have multiple drafts in the 2nd and 3rd rounds doesn't mean you didn't do your homework on them and studied them. If you have, say 4 picks in the 2nd round, and no picks in the first - and you pick WR CB WR WR (for example) you aren't picking those WR's out of a hat. You have studied them as you would have studied the first rounders.

Finally, why not overload a historically positional weakness with some draft capital? Walsh did that in 1981 and it worked well. (granted - Walsh was one of a kind)He did the same thing in '83 with the linebacker position.