OTC's 49ers Draft Grade and Analysis

Love your work OTC. However, I will never understand the argument of projects vs impact players. Every rookie is a project, no one comes fully developed. Are there players that require less development? Of course. There are no locks though. People who were upset we never drafted an "impact player" baffle me. Who was the impact player that people wanted? Marcus Peters? Irving? Ray? When I look at it, all these players need development and some come with baggage too. If the draft has taught me one thing over the years it's that you never know. Baalke clearly had a plan (big athletes) and stuck to it throughout the entire draft. Time will tell. I'm optimistic.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Summary: I'll admit, as much as I want to give "Bargain Bin" Baalke the benefit of the doubt, this latter half of the draft was painful. This is where Baalke is supposed to make his money, earn his keep. If some of these guys aren't at least role playing contributors, if they aren't at least on the team or practice squad (and that's at the absolute BARE MINIMUM), then the pick is completely wasted. THAT, my friends, is UNACCEPTABLE.

I'm not saying he's wasted them NOW. Not yet. But I'm very concerned that this may be the case. Maybe Baalke and the scouts saw things no one else did. Maybe. Maybe not. We had four picks after the 4th round. The outcome of these later picks will be a testament to how good Baalke & company really are. If none of them make the team, I will be furious. You can't throw away picks like that. You don't pick players you don't think can make the team and contribute. That's the whole point of the draft, so obviously they believe these guys were worth it.

I haven't seen the results yet, but I admit I was underwhelmed with some of the picks. The success of this is tied heavily -- check that, almost ENTIRELY -- to the long term development of some talented, but project players. I'll give Baalke credit for getting a couple more picks for next year again, but that doesn't change my grade much.

1. Arik Armstead, DL, Oregon
While not a bad pick, he wasn't the best value on the board to me. There is obviously a lot of upside and his playoff/bowl game/championship performances were very good, but I thought he was a borderline 1st, early 2nd. Yes, his numbers weren't great partially due to the scheme and his role, but Henry Anderson played in the same scheme -- even spending some time at NT -- and put up superior numbers. GRADE: B+

2. Jaquiski Tartt, S, Samford
I graded Tartt as an early third rounder. Small school status bumped him down a little, but he competed well at the Senior Bowl and depending on how quick he adjusts, he can contribute in year one. He is one of the better safeties in a weak class and provides insurance if Reid gets hurt again. Slightly higher than I thought he'd go, but not exactly a reach when there was a chance another team probably would've taken him if we tried to trade back. Still, several players available here at WR I would've taken instead and then got a safety later. GRADE: B+

3. Eli Harold, OLB, Virginia
Still needs a lot of work, but that is to be expected from a raw, 20 year old underclassman. He flashes potential and is the right value here in the 3rd. This is a good pick. GRADE: A

4. Blake Bell, TE, Oklahoma
This is a better pick than people think. Great red zone threat who is just scratching the surface of his potential. 6-6 260 yet quicker (6.88 3-cone time at combine) than most receivers. Bell talked about how at QB you're not focusing on the same kind of muscle development you do in the upper body at tight end and that he continues to get stronger and stronger there. Vernon likely isn't back in 2016 and if we cut ties with McDonald, Bell probably makes the team. Grade: A-

4. Mike Davis, RB, South Carolina
Certainly needs to improve his conditioning and take care of his body so he stays healthy, but when he is healthy, he's a good, balanced player. Solid par-value pick here. GRADE: B+

4. DeAndre Smelter, WR, Georgia Tech
Was picked way sooner than I expected, and hopefully he can fully recover. The massive learning curve and the injury had me giving him a 6th - 7th round grade. While he has some skills to work with, I'd have waited at least until the 5th or so to take him. Reason? He'll likely miss all of this season. Even if he does recover, considering the learning curve in his next seasons, at best we have a good possession receiver in 3 years. GRADE: C+

5. Bradley Pinion, P, Clemson
In researching the punter, his best ability was pinning teams inside the 20. But I don't think he was the best K/P in this class. Would have taken Justin Manton (who doubles as a kicker -- anyone remember the great Craig Hentrich?) in the 7th. He may eventually be something, but I'm sorry, I don't see him beating out Andy Lee or even making the PS, so I can't be on board with an underclassman punter this early. GRADE: F

6. Ian Silberman, OG, Boston College
He shut out Leonard Williams in their matchup this year in the sack/TFL column (although, he did have help some of the time on double-teams). But that was just one game. He does flash a nasty streak but he played much of the season below 300 pounds which probably hurt his value to some teams. Also comes with a variety of technical flaws and inconsistencies, but that's typical for a sixth rounder. PS Candidate and maybe someone to compete for a job in year two. GRADE: B-

7. Trenton Brown, OT, Florida
This pick I like. Massive lineman who is remarkably light on his feet for his size. If they conditioned him to lose even a little bit of that weight and play at around 335-340, you've got a developmental OT with swing-tackle potential. GRADE: A

7. Rory "Busta" Anderson, TE, South Carolina
I actually mocked him to the 49ers a couple months back. Thought he was a very, very strange candidate for us to pick him if he was still here and sure enough, we did. Zero risk, high reward. Very athletic TE who could contribute if only he could stay healthy. Still think there were better players on the board, but I'm OK with this pick. B+


Overall grade: B

Bottom Line: Even though I like several of the players, the simple fact remains is that we were aware that none of these players were likely instant impact players, and we were okay with that. I cannot reconcile that as a fan. I am not a proponent of making your entire draft contingent upon projects developing. There needs to be balance, and having some projects and some immediate contributors throughout your draft should be the goal. We really didn't appear to do that -- or have any intention of doing that -- this year. When your "projects" aren't good enough -- and you already knew that there's a good chance they don't make the team -- and you take them anyway, that is wasteful, ineffecient drafting that won't get you maximum value to your team. The success of the players in the second half of this draft will tell us either Baalke knew something we didn't, or he's just not as good of a talent evaluator as some think.

I totally understand the idea of finding a balance between immediate contributors and projects, but considering how sparingly many 2013 and 2014 draft picks played, whether it be because of the coaching staff or injury, it's damn near like we have three rookie classes coming in. Our immediate contributors will come from the last two draft classes. Damn shame how the development of those players was limited.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
I think a big part of the reason why they went with so many projects is that they have so many other guys who either haven't played or haven't gotten a chance to play much that they believe can make an impact. Reaser, Acker, Johnson, Thomas, Ramsay, Millard, Patton, Ellington, McDonald....etc....if you believe that those guys are ready for prime time, it changes things a lot.

Sooooo many players that just need a chance this year. Period.

I believe that too. There are many players that need the chance to prove what they got over the course of the season. With better coaching we should see something special.

However, I also believe this:

Bottom Line: Even though I like several of the players, the simple fact remains is that we were aware that none of these players were likely instant impact players, and we were okay with that. I cannot reconcile that as a fan. I am not a proponent of making your entire draft contingent upon projects developing. There needs to be balance, and having some projects and some immediate contributors throughout your draft should be the goal. We really didn't appear to do that -- or have any intention of doing that -- this year. When your "projects" aren't good enough -- and you already knew that there's a good chance they don't make the team -- and you take them anyway, that is wasteful, ineffecient drafting that won't get you maximum value to your team. The success of the players in the second half of this draft will tell us either Baalke knew something we didn't, or he's just not as good of a talent evaluator as some think.

Even the biggest risk takers on wall street hedge their bets a little bit. There are lots of project players on our team. Too many I think. The draft almost feels like they're punting on the season because down the road we'll be better. What happened to trying to win now?

Originally posted by Dblj55:
Love your work OTC. However, I will never understand the argument of projects vs impact players. Every rookie is a project, no one comes fully developed. Are there players that require less development? Of course. There are no locks though. People who were upset we never drafted an "impact player" baffle me. Who was the impact player that people wanted? Marcus Peters? Irving? Ray? When I look at it, all these players need development and some come with baggage too. If the draft has taught me one thing over the years it's that you never know. Baalke clearly had a plan (big athletes) and stuck to it throughout the entire draft. Time will tell. I'm optimistic.

It's funny b/c while everyone says AA is raw, Baalke noted one of the biggest reasons we took him was b/c he was one of the rare that actually play the 4-tech in a 3-4 defense. So...he's young and still developing but already well versed in our system/scheme. That's HUGE for quick development.

Originally posted by Big_Daddy:
I believe that too. There are many players that need the chance to prove what they got over the course of the season. With better coaching we should see something special.

However, I also believe this:

Bottom Line: Even though I like several of the players, the simple fact remains is that we were aware that none of these players were likely instant impact players, and we were okay with that. I cannot reconcile that as a fan. I am not a proponent of making your entire draft contingent upon projects developing. There needs to be balance, and having some projects and some immediate contributors throughout your draft should be the goal. We really didn't appear to do that -- or have any intention of doing that -- this year. When your "projects" aren't good enough -- and you already knew that there's a good chance they don't make the team -- and you take them anyway, that is wasteful, ineffecient drafting that won't get you maximum value to your team. The success of the players in the second half of this draft will tell us either Baalke knew something we didn't, or he's just not as good of a talent evaluator as some think.

Even the biggest risk takers on wall street hedge their bets a little bit. There are lots of project players on our team. Too many I think. The draft almost feels like they're punting on the season because down the road we'll be better. What happened to trying to win now?

Patrick Willis and Chris Borland happened (and Justin Smith most likely). And your analogy doesn't really work - the biggest risk takers on wall street don't hedge every single bet they make. We're already hedged by having veterans and previous draft picks competing for spots. It doesn't make sense to deviate from going BPA because you want to get a mix of instant impact players and players with potential. Players with potential were probably rated higher on our board this year compared to most years, because we aren't close to competing for championships right now.

Picking projects late isn't wasteful, inefficient drafting. It makes sense, especially given the current state of our roster. We already have safe, low ceiling bodies who can make the roster (veterans). Some of these late round guys are almost like lottery picks - most likely, you'll get nothing from them, but the expected value is still better than the high floor, low ceiling projects because they could amount to something good.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Thanks for the write up!

I will disagree with the smelter pick I loved it. At that point if they were grabbing a wr I was hoping for him. He has the makeup of a solid wr just needs to get healthy...learning behind boldin and from our new wr coach for a year should do wonders....plus we will get to see what Patton and Ellington can really do this season.

My only real head scratcher was the punter pick in the 5th.

Thats the problem with almost all of the Baalke picks this year. He reached. The players arent bad, just poor value.

Originally posted by bzborow1:

You gave a lot of B+s and A's to be so harsh on the draft, don't you think? This draft has to be the most unsexy in Baalke's tenure, so I really hope it works out. If it doesn't, there is no cover behind coach firings any longer.

Also, any thought of opening up the offense a bit and adding zone blocking schemes was crushed with this draft. We kept draft big, powerful but slow offensive players. Particularly at offensive line and RB. In a league searching to add speed, the 49ers are an interesting anomaly. Baalke is the polar opposite of Chip Kelly so it will be interesting to gauge both approaches.

Overall grade is based on a 12-point scale. A+ = 12 points, F = 0. The punter pick was killer to the overall grade because unless he beats out Lee, it is a thrown away pick. I'm not OK with that happening with a 5th rounder. You don't draft punters in the 5th round unless the one you have is terrible and/or not returning. Well-deserving of an F to me. Replace that pick with almost any other player, and this draft looks much better. Lots of 5th round players who fall to that area who actually make the team and/or even earn starting spots.

I just don't know what grading scale they were using to determine a punter as BPA right there. Now, our compensatory pick Smelter may indeed prove me wrong. I think he is a monster blocker and has upside as a receiver, I just worry about the injury and how long he'll take to develop into a contributor, due to the steep learning curve.

I think overall it's a very fair grade, considering the whole draft collectively.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

I totally understand the idea of finding a balance between immediate contributors and projects, but considering how sparingly many 2013 and 2014 draft picks played, whether it be because of the coaching staff or injury, it's damn near like we have three rookie classes coming in. Our immediate contributors will come from the last two draft classes. Damn shame how the development of those players was limited.

I agree. That's the struggle, even when we do get the players we're hoping for (loved the Patton and Ellington picks we made each year, respectively), they have been rotting on the bench unnecessarily, and I hope our new staff rectifies this -- it seems like they want to. I don't feel like the kids can develop at the pace we need them to if they're not getting some playing time. As nice as Lloyd's one big play was, we should've had Patton playing more last year.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Summary: I'll admit, as much as I want to give "Bargain Bin" Baalke the benefit of the doubt, this latter half of the draft was painful. This is where Baalke is supposed to make his money, earn his keep. If some of these guys aren't at least role playing contributors, if they aren't at least on the team or practice squad (and that's at the absolute BARE MINIMUM), then the pick is completely wasted. THAT, my friends, is UNACCEPTABLE.

I'm not saying he's wasted them NOW. Not yet. But I'm very concerned that this may be the case. Maybe Baalke and the scouts saw things no one else did. Maybe. Maybe not. We had four picks after the 4th round. The outcome of these later picks will be a testament to how good Baalke & company really are. If none of them make the team, I will be furious. You can't throw away picks like that. You don't pick players you don't think can make the team and contribute. That's the whole point of the draft, so obviously they believe these guys were worth it.

I haven't seen the results yet, but I admit I was underwhelmed with some of the picks. The success of this is tied heavily -- check that, almost ENTIRELY -- to the long term development of some talented, but project players. I'll give Baalke credit for getting a couple more picks for next year again, but that doesn't change my grade much.

1. Arik Armstead, DL, Oregon
While not a bad pick, he wasn't the best value on the board to me. There is obviously a lot of upside and his playoff/bowl game/championship performances were very good, but I thought he was a borderline 1st, early 2nd. Yes, his numbers weren't great partially due to the scheme and his role, but Henry Anderson played in the same scheme -- even spending some time at NT -- and put up superior numbers. GRADE: B+

2. Jaquiski Tartt, S, Samford
I graded Tartt as an early third rounder. Small school status bumped him down a little, but he competed well at the Senior Bowl and depending on how quick he adjusts, he can contribute in year one. He is one of the better safeties in a weak class and provides insurance if Reid gets hurt again. Slightly higher than I thought he'd go, but not exactly a reach when there was a chance another team probably would've taken him if we tried to trade back. Still, several players available here at WR I would've taken instead and then got a safety later. GRADE: B+

3. Eli Harold, OLB, Virginia
Still needs a lot of work, but that is to be expected from a raw, 20 year old underclassman. He flashes potential and is the right value here in the 3rd. This is a good pick. GRADE: A

4. Blake Bell, TE, Oklahoma
This is a better pick than people think. Great red zone threat who is just scratching the surface of his potential. 6-6 260 yet quicker (6.88 3-cone time at combine) than most receivers. Bell talked about how at QB you're not focusing on the same kind of muscle development you do in the upper body at tight end and that he continues to get stronger and stronger there. Vernon likely isn't back in 2016 and if we cut ties with McDonald, Bell probably makes the team. Grade: A-

4. Mike Davis, RB, South Carolina
Certainly needs to improve his conditioning and take care of his body so he stays healthy, but when he is healthy, he's a good, balanced player. Solid par-value pick here. GRADE: B+

4. DeAndre Smelter, WR, Georgia Tech
Was picked way sooner than I expected, and hopefully he can fully recover. The massive learning curve and the injury had me giving him a 6th - 7th round grade. While he has some skills to work with, I'd have waited at least until the 5th or so to take him. Reason? He'll likely miss all of this season. Even if he does recover, considering the learning curve in his next seasons, at best we have a good possession receiver in 3 years. GRADE: C+

5. Bradley Pinion, P, Clemson
In researching the punter, his best ability was pinning teams inside the 20. But I don't think he was the best K/P in this class. Would have taken Justin Manton (who doubles as a kicker -- anyone remember the great Craig Hentrich?) in the 7th. He may eventually be something, but I'm sorry, I don't see him beating out Andy Lee or even making the PS, so I can't be on board with an underclassman punter this early. GRADE: F

6. Ian Silberman, OG, Boston College
He shut out Leonard Williams in their matchup this year in the sack/TFL column (although, he did have help some of the time on double-teams). But that was just one game. He does flash a nasty streak but he played much of the season below 300 pounds which probably hurt his value to some teams. Also comes with a variety of technical flaws and inconsistencies, but that's typical for a sixth rounder. PS Candidate and maybe someone to compete for a job in year two. GRADE: B-

7. Trenton Brown, OT, Florida
This pick I like. Massive lineman who is remarkably light on his feet for his size. If they conditioned him to lose even a little bit of that weight and play at around 335-340, you've got a developmental OT with swing-tackle potential. GRADE: A

7. Rory "Busta" Anderson, TE, South Carolina
I actually mocked him to the 49ers a couple months back. Thought he was a very, very strange candidate for us to pick him if he was still here and sure enough, we did. Zero risk, high reward. Very athletic TE who could contribute if only he could stay healthy. Still think there were better players on the board, but I'm OK with this pick. B+


Overall grade: B

Bottom Line: Even though I like several of the players, the simple fact remains is that we were aware that none of these players were likely instant impact players, and we were okay with that. I cannot reconcile that as a fan. I am not a proponent of making your entire draft contingent upon projects developing. There needs to be balance, and having some projects and some immediate contributors throughout your draft should be the goal. We really didn't appear to do that -- or have any intention of doing that -- this year. When your "projects" aren't good enough -- and you already knew that there's a good chance they don't make the team -- and you take them anyway, that is wasteful, ineffecient drafting that won't get you maximum value to your team. The success of the players in the second half of this draft will tell us either Baalke knew something we didn't, or he's just not as good of a talent evaluator as some think.

I think a big part of the reason why they went with so many projects is that they have so many other guys who either haven't played or haven't gotten a chance to play much that they believe can make an impact. Reaser, Acker, Johnson, Thomas, Ramsay, Millard, Patton, Ellington, McDonald....etc....if you believe that those guys are ready for prime time, it changes things a lot.

Good post. If even half of these guys turn out to earn substantial play time, it will be a success. That is why this year's draft is frustrating to evaluate. AA is an example: If Justin comes back for one more year, Armstead wouldn't see much playing time anyway, but in the meantime he will be learning from one of the best. OTOH, if Smith does retire, Armstead is a logical replacement but would have to compete with Carradine and Dial for PT in a rotation.

My main point is that this draft is largely about looking down the road. "What do we have if..." is the message. What about if Reid turns out to have more concussion issues? What if Bethea starts to slow down? Tartt, though picked a bit early, was not likely going to be around later so grab a guy you know will fill a role even though you don't need him right now. You can make that same scenario on most of the picks. It is about drafting a year ahead of time so he will be seasoned when you really need him.

With the moves in FA, there were no glaring holes on the team. Yes, it would have been nice to have an impact player or two but I don't see many of them past the top 10-12. The rest are just very good players that will need some seasoning but will be very good when that happens.

Originally posted by Butter:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Thanks for the write up!

I will disagree with the smelter pick I loved it. At that point if they were grabbing a wr I was hoping for him. He has the makeup of a solid wr just needs to get healthy...learning behind boldin and from our new wr coach for a year should do wonders....plus we will get to see what Patton and Ellington can really do this season.

My only real head scratcher was the punter pick in the 5th.

Thats the problem with almost all of the Baalke picks this year. He reached. The players arent bad, just poor value.

Originally posted by Dblj55:

Love your work OTC. However, I will never understand the argument of projects vs impact players. Every rookie is a project, no one comes fully developed. Are there players that require less development? Of course. There are no locks though. People who were upset we never drafted an "impact player" baffle me. Who was the impact player that people wanted? Marcus Peters? Irving? Ray? When I look at it, all these players need development and some come with baggage too. If the draft has taught me one thing over the years it's that you never know. Baalke clearly had a plan (big athletes) and stuck to it throughout the entire draft. Time will tell. I'm optimistic.

I appreciate the feedback from you guys. Thank you. If I may, let me clarify a little on my comments. A grade of "B" really isn't too bad, it's solid. One pick really ruined it from being a much better haul, but in terms of impact players vs. projects, what I mean is obviously there are some kids that are simply more "NFL Ready" than others. Whether it be system, physical limitations, mental maturity, or just the general level of skill in some aspect, some guys simply are more refined and ready to bring more immediate value to your team. Lots of parts to consider.

A "B" grade says, overall I don't hate the draft, I just hated one pick and was so-so on a couple others, while collectively feeling we could've done a little better job overall in maximizing value, while still achieving the goal of getting/staying bigger and faster. Just my opinion, and I could be wrong on those picks I was iffy about, we'll see. When day one of the regular comes, we'll see if things make more sense.

Not a sexy draft class, but one that I'm hoping for that shows Balke's genius. I just wished they would've traded up for Tre Jackson in the 4th and took a chance on Ajaji in the fifth. Other than that I'm excited about Tartt/ Harold and even the punter.

Also what about the UDFA,? Dres Anderson looks like he can make it to the 53 man roster.

In the world where I reside, a B is considered a good grade.

I can not wait for us to see these players and the players from last year take the field.

Then we can begin to grade both the players and the draft evaluators.

Bell reminds me of former Bengals receiver Matt Jones. Both are 6'6"and converted QB's. Jones showed no passion for the game and had other issues. McDonald must be hearing footsteps with all the tight ends on the roster.

Originally posted by REB4:
I agree on your bottom line grade. B might be ok if he had just taken over the team and is rebuilding from scratch. Not good enough now that we have a team that's supposed to already be contending & needs holes filled right now. I also agree with your assessment of the last half of the draft. What is the fascination of continuing to draft for quantity instead of using those picks to go get more quality? We've already seen just how many of these picks just get wasted & end up getting cut without ever really contributing? Ohhh but Baalke is a master at stockpiling picks, yay, . But the goal is a Super Bowl before we have to replace Staley, Kap, Bowman, Boldin, V.Davis, etc and have to start over again. Wouldn't you rather see 6 top, high quality picks then 10-11-12 projects that might never, ever see the field with this team? If there truly is so much talent on this team, then let's a few ones that will get us over the top.

six top, high quality picks???? from where??? we just had one pick in each of the first three rounds.
expecting top picks on day 3 is quite unrealistic. therefore, instead of wasting low-round picks on guys who wont develop any further, i'd rather pick players with a high ceiling, especially if i manage a talented team. contrary to that, a franchise in a rebuilding mode indeed needs players who can make an impact today.

Originally posted by communist:

six top, high quality picks???? from where??? we just had one pick in each of the first three rounds.
expecting top picks on day 3 is quite unrealistic. therefore, instead of wasting low-round picks on guys who wont develop any further, i'd rather pick players with a high ceiling, especially if i manage a talented team. contrary to that, a franchise in a rebuilding mode indeed needs players who can make an impact today.

That's backwards. Franchises in rebuilding mode want players with high ceilings because they won't be competitive soon. Franchises who are already competitive want high floor immediate impact players. We're in rebuilding mode which explains all the projects.