There are 165 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Cam Johnson being traded to Colts???

And there is no way Cam had top 50 pick talent ... I know one talking head said he had thought at some point in the draft "scouting" process that Cam had talent, and I heard round 3-4 more than round 1-2. He had SOME promise, but 32 teams passed on that "top 50 talent" many many times for him to get to the bottom of the 7th round.

I wanted to see him develop, I think the team did too, but he made it so they couldn't get him to the PS so they did the next best thing, they kept him and traded him.
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by jreff22:
what did we get?


Conditional seventh rounder.

Thats it? Seems kind of s**tty. If the whole point is to look for late round gems...and we probably had one, why trade it away for noting better?


Your right. Don't know what to say.

We traded a 7th rounder that we didn't need today for a 7th rounder we might need tomorrow. One that we could possibly package into a higher pick.
  • ace52
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 287
I don't want to second-guess our FO on their personnel decisions because they do this for a living and I don't, but...
Man, I don't like the Hawkins cut, and I really hate this Cam Johnson trade.
To me, they were the guys who made the most explosive plays on the offensive and defensive (and even ST) sides during the pre-season, and we let them both go.
In return, we get a (conditional) 7th round pick who may never be as good as Cam is right now. Basically, we gave Indy a year's worth of coaching and development of a player for free.
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
This move combined with the Haralson move and the associated WR signing completely baffle me. We already have multiple late round draft picks, so more than enough ammo to move around. And actually drafting players in the 7th round has for the most part yielded players who don't make the team or who are cut within a year or two.

So, we give up on two talented, valuable players at a position where depth should be a priority, for picks that will have very limited value for us, and we cut at least 3 WRs that showed promise in our system and have real NFL experience for an unknown commodity who couldn't make an NFL roster?

Just makes no sense to me. Those 7th round picks (especially now that we have done it twice) will never be as valuable to us as either player would be if have an injury at OLB. Much like the injuries that were a big part of the reason our D went downhill at the end of last year and were major factor in losing the Super Bowl.

I really think this front office, in spite of all their success, sometimes gets too cute for their own good and ends up outsmarting themselves.

So, while as a fan, I hope I'm wrong, and these moves don't hurt us, I will be shocked if they don't down the line and if we get more benefit from Harper and two 7th round picks than we would have gotten from Haralson, Johnson or one of the WRs we cut.

Bill Walsh said that multiple late picks are often more likely to get you a player than a single early pick. The 49ers have several late picks and UDFA pick ups that prove you can get talent late.

There is no way the 49ers could keep 6 OLBs on the roster ... nor does anybody keep 200% backups at LB. Draft picks are VERY valuable because teams that value them stay better for longer.

I may be wrong and I don't have a history of being good at evaluating WRs but I think Harper is more likely to produce for the 49ers than any of the WRs let go to get to the 53 man limit.
Originally posted by sweetDwilly:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Originally posted by sweetDwilly:
Originally posted by redrathman:
I love the outrage over a seventh round pick that had one good showing in the fourth game of the preseason.

Listen closely: You're not a General Manager. You're a fan with limited knowledge of the inner workings of the team.

I truly hate posts like this.

I'll be happy to call you out next time you post "your opinion" regarding anything football related. By your logic, posters don't have a right to comment on scheme, roster talent, roster moves and pretty much anything other than the color of the new stadium. After all, its all part of the "inner workings" and none of us are GMs, Coaches or even players at the NFL level.....

Maybe we should change the site to 49ers Tailgating Secretes, since that's the only thing we are really qualified enough to talk about.

Do we still get to post about other people's posts? It would suck if we couldn't continue to read your redundant posts about how you don't like these posts.

Sure, since surely you have knowledge about "your opinion."

Sweet. Thanks for your permission.
  • DRnSFw
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 47,732
Originally posted by ace52:
I don't want to second-guess our FO on their personnel decisions because they do this for a living and I don't, but...
Man, I don't like the Hawkins cut, and I really hate this Cam Johnson trade.
To me, they were the guys who made the most explosive plays on the offensive and defensive (and even ST) sides during the pre-season, and we let them both go.
In return, we get a (conditional) 7th round pick who may never be as good as Cam is right now. Basically, we gave Indy a year's worth of coaching and development of a player for free.

and that's why you are not a GM you don't know anything
Originally posted by ace52:
Basically, we gave Indy a year's worth of coaching and development of a player for free.

My feelings about this too.

The other way to look at it though is that Skuta is a player on ST and Cam isn't. Getting the chance to roll the dice on a 7th rounder again (or package the pick in a trade) is more valuable than a player you can't actually use.
Best Front Office in the NFL
  • DRnSFw
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 47,732
Originally posted by TexasNiner:
This move combined with the Haralson move and the associated WR signing completely baffle me. We already have multiple late round draft picks, so more than enough ammo to move around. And actually drafting players in the 7th round has for the most part yielded players who don't make the team or who are cut within a year or two.

So, we give up on two talented, valuable players at a position where depth should be a priority, for picks that will have very limited value for us, and we cut at least 3 WRs that showed promise in our system and have real NFL experience for an unknown commodity who couldn't make an NFL roster?

Just makes no sense to me. Those 7th round picks (especially now that we have done it twice) will never be as valuable to us as either player would be if have an injury at OLB. Much like the injuries that were a big part of the reason our D went downhill at the end of last year and were major factor in losing the Super Bowl.

I really think this front office, in spite of all their success, sometimes gets too cute for their own good and ends up outsmarting themselves.

So, while as a fan, I hope I'm wrong, and these moves don't hurt us, I will be shocked if they don't down the line and if we get more benefit from Harper and two 7th round picks than we would have gotten from Haralson, Johnson or one of the WRs we cut.

as a fan you will be wrong dont worry
Originally posted by DRnSFw:
Originally posted by ace52:
I don't want to second-guess our FO on their personnel decisions because they do this for a living and I don't, but...
Man, I don't like the Hawkins cut, and I really hate this Cam Johnson trade.
To me, they were the guys who made the most explosive plays on the offensive and defensive (and even ST) sides during the pre-season, and we let them both go.
In return, we get a (conditional) 7th round pick who may never be as good as Cam is right now. Basically, we gave Indy a year's worth of coaching and development of a player for free.

and that's why you are not a GM you don't know anything

Yup. Mods ban him...he isn't justifying a FO move!
Originally posted by Janitor:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by jreff22:
what did we get?


Conditional seventh rounder.

Thats it? Seems kind of s**tty. If the whole point is to look for late round gems...and we probably had one, why trade it away for noting better?


Your right. Don't know what to say.

We traded a 7th rounder that we didn't need today for a 7th rounder we might need tomorrow. One that we could possibly package into a higher pick.

assuming that pick works out
Something like 36% of the Seahawk's roster is UDFAs. There is talent towards the bottom (or outside) of the draft.
Originally posted by PopeyeJonesing:
Originally posted by ace52:
Basically, we gave Indy a year's worth of coaching and development of a player for free.

My feelings about this too.

The other way to look at it though is that Skuta is a player on ST and Cam isn't. Getting the chance to roll the dice on a 7th rounder again (or package the pick in a trade) is more valuable than a player you can't actually use.

Cam had a blocked punt for a TD and played on the coverage units.
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by Janitor:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by mayo49:
Originally posted by jreff22:
what did we get?


Conditional seventh rounder.

Thats it? Seems kind of s**tty. If the whole point is to look for late round gems...and we probably had one, why trade it away for noting better?


Your right. Don't know what to say.

We traded a 7th rounder that we didn't need today for a 7th rounder we might need tomorrow. One that we could possibly package into a higher pick.

assuming that pick works out

That's part of the risk.

I'm totally down with this. Cam was going to provide nothing for the team this year. So trade him for the chance to get someone who might next year.
  • DRnSFw
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 47,732
Two Words! Tank Carradine

/thread