There are 59 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

3rd Draft in a Row Without a Projected Starter

Originally posted by Rodinxxv:
Exactly, our talent level is there. It just is what is. Brooks doesn't get that roughing the passer against the Saints and we have home field instead of Seattle. Probably a totally different out come. I mean we almost won in Seattle, and were in the drivers seat for most of the game.

Oh, and who is this player that we should have traded up for that was gonna win us the SB this year, and how much were you willing to give up for this difference maker?

We "almost" won in Seattle, well we didn't, we lost. Was it just because of the 12th Man you think ? Let's face it, we lost NFC West and therefore we lost home field, we have noone to blame, but ourselves. What does that tell you ? We simply weren't good enough, we were decent, but just not good enough to take us all the way.

Oh and I didn't mention anything about trading up neither. We had all the picks in the 2nd or even 3rd and take WRs for example we simply let every single one of them slipped through our fingers just because Baalke thought there was no value to be had. No value to be had ? Just you watch, some of them could end up as pro bowl players.
  • rtj03
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 537
Originally posted by English:
Easy to say "impact players" at draft time. Exactly who, that we could have had, represents an immediate impact player who would have pushed us over the hump? And how many such players, draft able from the mid 1st round on, actually do impact on a strong and deep roster in Year 1?


Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Rascal:
I see. So, how come we still haven't won the Super Bowl yet then ?

You have not answered his question, rtj03's point is we need immediate impact players to push us over the hump in our Quest for 6.

Easy to say "impact players" at draft time. Exactly who, that we could have had, represents an immediate impact player who would have pushed us over the hump? And how many such players, draft able from the mid 1st round on, actually do impact on a strong and deep roster in Year 1?

We are a good team but just good and competitive. We have needs, primarily to add some big play ability to our offense and feel some of the gaps left by players leaving. We can keep drafting good players will who help us to be good but not get over the wall that we are behind.

Be aggressive, give up 8 players (picks) this draft for two or three impact players to contribute now and that will get this good group of players we currently have to the next level.

Sammy watkins, Beckham come in and change our offense. Give up 5 picks this year and we still have 5 more picks.

Baalke is drafting picks and not guys who can come in and help TODAYS roster win. Sure i agree we will be competitive for the next few years but thats just it, competitive.
Jimmie ward - how often did we play nickel D last year? A ton! Ward is our nickel back AT THE VERY LEAST!
Carlos Hyde - Gore and Hunter are free agents next year, Lattimore hasn't proven if he can return to preinjury form and LaMike is on the trade block.
Marcus Martin - this guy will compete with Kilgore and probably supplant him, arguably the top rated center in the draft.
Brandon Thomas - Iupati is going to cash in next season and it's probably not going to be with us, BThomas was a OT in college but will be a OG with us and will be our starter next season.

So far this draft has been great. The Stevie Johnson addition just ices the cake. Our top 3 WR's could be #1's on other teams. I expect CB's a WR and maybe a QB today. Would love to see Colvin and Millard added. There just aren't the roster slots to keep all these picks, so being able to stash high talent picks for a year makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by DeUh:
Cause the season has not started yet ?

How about a potential lock down nickel corner in Ward ?

How about a perfect fit for our WR group in Johnson ?

How about a 1st round talent in Carradine joining the D-Line ?

So, last season doesn't count ? Does that mean we had a bad draft last year then ?
Sounds like some don't like being able to draft for depth as opposed to having to swing for the home runs every year like teams like Jacksonville, Cleveland and other annual doormats. It's a good thing that you don't have to draft for starters every year. It's the main reason why we can talk about 2012 being a trash draft yet the team still has been to 3 straight NFC Championship games. Having to draft for starters is the fastest way to see a large amount of GM and Front office turnover in your organization. No thanks.
Ya know, that's the problem with being a fan of a team loaded with talent.

Hard to find day 1 impact starters. f**k. Maybe we should be Raider fans. At least that way we can be happy on draft day but be miserable during the season.
Originally posted by Rascal:
We "almost" won in Seattle, well we didn't, we lost. Was it just because of the 12th Man you think ? Let's face it, we lost NFC West and therefore we lost home field, we have noone to blame, but ourselves. What does that tell you ? We simply weren't good enough, we were decent, but just not good enough to take us all the way.

Oh and I didn't mention anything about trading up neither. We had all the picks in the 2nd or even 3rd and take WRs for example we simply let every single one of them slipped through our fingers just because Baalke thought there was no value to be had. No value to be had ? Just you watch, some of them could end up as pro bowl players.

No, we were good enough. You saying we were decent is laughable. BTW..luck matters, Homefield absolutely matters, there is a reason we lose there and they always lose on our turf. Can we always get better. Of course. Which is what we were doing.

WR? did we not just trade for Stevie Johnson? Maybe Baalke selected probowlers, and you just don't realize it. Who are the future probowlers that you wanted?
[ Edited by Rodinxxv on May 10, 2014 at 7:59 AM ]
That is a false statement. Niners will have several starters in 1-2 years:

Ward: will replace Bethea as a starter at SS
Hyde: will replace Gore as a starter at RB
Martin: will probably be the starter at C
Borland: will backup the best ILB tandem in the league
Thomas: will replace Iupati if he leaves

Last years draft:

Reid: starter
Carradine: will replace McDonald or Smith
Lemonier: has a chance to be a starter once Brooks retires/leaves
Patton: has a chance to be the #2 WR, at least be the slot WR
Originally posted by Rascal:
I see. So, how come we still haven't won the Super Bowl yet then ?

You have not answered his question, rtj03's point is we need immediate impact players to push us over the hump in our Quest for 6.

Seattle was the better team last year, that's why (answer to point 1).

And to the OP about trading up for impact players. Two things ... first, how do you know they will be impact? The first round is replete with busts and under achievers every draft. I think it is better to overwhelm with number personally, then your chance of hitting is increased. Second, even if they wanted to trade up you need a willing partner that doesn't ask for the something unreasonable in return. I think Baalke's reputation as always getting the better end of the deal has other GM's wary.

Either way, there are a lot of armchair GM's here that really have no idea of the true back story ... including myself.
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Rascal:
I see. So, how come we still haven't won the Super Bowl yet then ?

You have not answered his question, rtj03's point is we need immediate impact players to push us over the hump in our Quest for 6.

Easy to say "impact players" at draft time. Exactly who, that we could have had, represents an immediate impact player who would have pushed us over the hump? And how many such players, draft able from the mid 1st round on, actually do impact on a strong and deep roster in Year 1?

Or perhaps may be I can flip your question around, are you saying from mid 1st round onwards to the end of 3rd, that is like over 70 players and none, absolutely none of them can provide immediate impact in their 1st year ? I mean I can name some prospects, but if you already don't believe any of the 70 can provide immediate impact, then I just don't see the point. It will be just a case of me saying yes I believe whom and whom can provide immediate impact and you saying no.
  • DeUh
  • Member
  • Posts: 1,936
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by DeUh:
Cause the season has not started yet ?

How about a potential lock down nickel corner in Ward ?

How about a perfect fit for our WR group in Johnson ?

How about a 1st round talent in Carradine joining the D-Line ?

So, last season doesn't count ? Does that mean we had a bad draft last year then ?

What are you talking about ?

rtj03 said that the last couple years we were solid but 1-2 players away from winning it all + he was pissed that we did not get an "impact player" so far this year.

I gave him Ward , Johnson and Carradine as impact players.

After that you asked why we haven´t won the Superbowl yet. Well guess what those players were not on the roster last season. This does not mean that our draft last year was bad or our team was bad or whatever you are talking about. The point is that we are better now than at the end of last season.
Originally posted by rtj03:
I agree with original post.

We need an impact starter or two. We do have a solid roster but that has only proved to make us competitive but not good enough to be the best. We had all the ammo to get an impact,starter but instead we have players that will contribute in 2-3 years when the guys we have now are done and proved not to be good enough to win Super Bowl.

I think Ward will end up being that guy this year . . . first in the nickle, then eventually in the base defense
Originally posted by domingo360:
Aside from Eric Reid, this looks to me like the third year in a row where we won't have a starter out of the draft class. This has got to catch up to us at some point.

Talk about a contradiction to the max. Wtf dude. We plan for the future. You got to be a new niner fan
Originally posted by Bluesbro:
Originally posted by Rascal:
I see. So, how come we still haven't won the Super Bowl yet then ?

You have not answered his question, rtj03's point is we need immediate impact players to push us over the hump in our Quest for 6.

Seattle was the better team last year, that's why (answer to point 1).

And to the OP about trading up for impact players. Two things ... first, how do you know they will be impact? The first round is replete with busts and under achievers every draft. I think it is better to overwhelm with number personally, then your chance of hitting is increased. Second, even if they wanted to trade up you need a willing partner that doesn't ask for the something unreasonable in return. I think Baalke's reputation as always getting the better end of the deal has other GM's wary.

Either way, there are a lot of armchair GM's here that really have no idea of the true back story ... including myself.

I agree, Seattle was the better team.

Personally, I didn't mention anything about trading up. I think my key issue with this draft is first and foremost Baalke did not fill the need in a couple of skill positions, namely CB and WR. There were definitely good prospects to be had in the 2nd or even 3rd, but no he did nothing.

By the way, good pick with Paul Richardson !
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by Rascal:
I see. So, how come we still haven't won the Super Bowl yet then ?

You have not answered his question, rtj03's point is we need immediate impact players to push us over the hump in our Quest for 6.

Easy to say "impact players" at draft time. Exactly who, that we could have had, represents an immediate impact player who would have pushed us over the hump? And how many such players, draft able from the mid 1st round on, actually do impact on a strong and deep roster in Year 1?

Or perhaps may be I can flip your question around, are you saying from mid 1st round onwards to the end of 3rd, that is like over 70 players and none, absolutely none of them can provide immediate impact in their 1st year ? I mean I can name some prospects, but if you already don't believe any of the 70 can provide immediate impact, then I just don't see the point. It will be just a case of me saying yes I believe whom and whom can provide immediate impact and you saying no.

I'm confused. If all players have a chance to make an impact, then why are the draft picks we made precluded from this. Jimmy Ward..cant make an impact? Hyde? Martin? Borland?