Comparing 49ers draft classes to other NFL draft classes 2005-2008

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
07 is really a good class. But other than that I don't think Scot M. has much to write home about.

Why don't you give analysis now on the other 3 GM's in comparison.

Originally posted by unst4bl3:
I would like to add that I believe Nolan had a hand in a few of those drafts ( for the good or the bad, you decide.)

I mentioned that above in the original post.

first and second round picks are more guaranteed than later rounds. That being said, I think a good GM gets talent and starters out of the later rounds. If you can score starters from the 5-7th rounds and UFA, then that makes a fairly good GM as in they will come at significantly reduced prices and likely play their tails off...

Did McC only take over drafting in 2007? 2007 was a great year BTW!, the others weere so-so...

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by lamontb:
What made you pick the teams you did? Ravens and Eagles are usually picking much later than the Niners thus there talent shouldn't be on par with 1st round picks. Biggest thing i notice that 05 they had 11 picks and the only sure fire winner out of the bunch is Gore. 06 got the team some quality starting talent, and talent at depth. It would have been a A+ draft if Brandon Marshall was selected instead of that bum Brandon Williams. Those type of bonehead draft moves can't happen again. 07 was by far his best draft really no complaints. Getting value from Goldson and Brown was a major bonus to that class. 08 so far looks like a complete waste except for Morgan. You just can't miss on a complete draft class. All in all he's average to below average. Looking at all these teams let's you know that you can find good to great talent in later rounds. Many of the best players out of all these teams combined are later than 2nd round picks.

Respected GM's is the reason for picking these teams. While these teams have all made the playoffs during these years they all also had seasons where they drafted inside the top 15.

Re: Marshall, after Williams was selected 6 WR's went before Marshall (Maurice Stovall, Willie Reid, Brad Smith, Cory Rodgers, Jason Avant and Demetrius Williams). So a lot of teams made that same bonehead move in hindsight, Marshall went 33 picks later.

I think this shows however that Scot has not done as piss poor a job as some make it our to be. I think when it comes down to it, a lot look back at what we could have had after some of these guys make an impact and think of what could have been or become upset because the 49ers selected a player they knew little about coming out as opposed to a player they wanted. Prime example is Desean Jackson, but fact is 32 NFL teams didn't select him in the 1st round and the Eagles did not even make him their 1st selection in that draft. Even professionals make mistakes or undervalue some players coming out of college.

Cool on why you picked those teams, and I agree he's not piss poor. But I don't think he's that great either. The draft is a gamble. Anyway to slice it Brandon Williams was a horrible pick. It just compounds it that Marshall was on the board chilling. And to me it's more about the players he selected instead of Jackson or Marshall that is the problem. Of course other teams passed him up but some of those teams passed him up for better talent and better players. Niners passed him up twice for players who just aren't that good. I think there is a bigger hate for Scot b/c he passed on Jackson b/c there are a ton of folks from Cali and fans of Cal U who support the Niners. Plus you add in the Jerry Rice working the kid out and telling the team they should draft him is what makes certain fans so irate about that one. Everybody has misses, and nobody should be expected to be perfect. But you just can't have complete failures for an entire draft class. And his stance on guards is really troubling and telling why he seems to keep drafting bad ones. At the end of the day it all comes down to Smith. Not sure if that pick was all Nolan, but if Smith becomes a franchise qb I believe Scott would be looked at differently. If he comes out and just looks blah then the pitchforks will be out to kill him. I can't deny that he has brought in a lot of talent to this team, but he's had some big misses. Which leads me back to believing he's average. I'm probably to harsh on him at times myself, but I can't say he's done a terrible job.

I agree with Williams being horrible but 6 teams who took WR's also though higher of who they took in place of Marshall. It appears Marshall just wasn't valued as high as he should have been in hindsight but it doesn't change what happened.

With Jackson we had Sweed rated higher according to all reports and that comes down to his value on bigger players. Is that flawed ? IMO yes, you shouldn't discount a player due to his size but I am sure they are many in the league (not just GM's but scouts, personnel people and coaches be it position, coordinators or HC's) who share the same opinion. It's unfortunate as we will possibly continue to see some smaller great players continue to slide by us, all we can do is pray for luck that we get these bigger guys right whenever passing over a smaller one for one with size.

I also agree he has a poor history with OG's for the most part, however again according to reports we wanted Mankins in 05 and settled for Baas. Hopefully we get it right this year as we all agree we need OL help. One can only hope that Solari can be a good influence and help Scot select the right OL for us.

Originally posted by SJniner7:
first and second round picks are more guaranteed than later rounds. That being said, I think a good GM gets talent and starters out of the later rounds. If you can score starters from the 5-7th rounds and UFA, then that makes a fairly good GM as in they will come at significantly reduced prices and likely play their tails off...

Did McC only take over drafting in 2007? 2007 was a great year BTW!, the others weere so-so...

I would think grabbing Haralson, Walker, Goldson and Brown in the rounds 5 through 7 isn't bad. And considering that 7 out of 8 of our 1st and 2nd round picks are starters I would think it would be difficult to do much better. I don't see how he can be rated below average, what the hell does an above average drafter do.

I have a different way of looking at this. I am looking at first round picks, where the very best players are available. Notice the following difference:

SF 1,6,11,22,11,28,29 =7 1st rd. picks, many very high.
BALT 22,12,29,18 =only four, most in last half of 1st rd.
GB 24,5,16, = only three
PHIL 31,14 =only two picks

Gee, if I was SF's GM, I could buy a draft magazine and do better than Balt, GB, and Phil just because of the number of first round picks and because our team was so poor that many of our picks were high where elite players were available.

Come on, guys. Where is your analytical ability?

Originally posted by excelsior:
I have a different way of looking at this. I am looking at first round picks, where the very best players are available. Notice the following difference:

SF 1,6,11,22,11,28,29 =7 1st rd. picks, many very high.
BALT 22,12,29,18 =only four, most in last half of 1st rd.
GB 24,5,16, = only three
PHIL 31,14 =only two picks

Gee, if I was SF's GM, I could buy a draft magazine and do better than Balt, GB, and Phil just because of the number of first round picks and because our team was so poor that many of our picks were high where elite players were available.

Come on, guys. Where is your analytical ability?

KRS is looking at the player's actual productivity. By simply looking at where a player was drafted, rather than what the player has done, aren't you assuming that a high pick equates to production, a faulty assumption?

Alright, I'll go ahead and summarize the point of this comparison -

Scot has done just as well as some of the most respected GMs in the league over this time span.

Argue about what picks people had, argue that he should have taken Desean Jackson or Brandon Marshall, whatever. Every other team in the NFL looks back every year and wishes in hindsight that they had chosen differently. And Scot has done just as well as the rest at getting some talent in the later rounds.

That DOESN'T mean that every pick is good. It DOESN'T mean that we haven't drafted any busts.

But it DOES mean that everyone's ridiculous expectation that a good GM should somehow NEVER miss and ALWAYS find good players in later rounds is just ignorant.

A good GM improves the talent of his team on a regular basis. Scot does this and he does it well - even when compared to some of the best in the league.

GM's earn their paycheck after the first couple round IMO. Anyone can scout Vernon Davis and Patrick Willis but the Morgans, Gores, Haralsons and Goldsons take a talented evaluator.

Scotty's been doing just fine based on that theory

So far, I’d give McClaughan a C- grade, as drafts in 2006 and 2007 where decent but those in 2005 and 2008 where just terrible (jury is still out for '09). My main concern is his ability to recognize talent where others don't (see Walsh). He picked up some good value guys that fell because of various character and health concerns but he hasn't struck gold in the later rounds by pure vision. In hindsight, we now know that Balmer was not the best player available however, most questioned the pick even back then. He's failed miserably as far as bringing in quality offensive lineman, both in the draft and free agency. Staley may be his best move, but when you consider that it cost us a 4th rounder along with the 7th pick in '08, I’d consider him a reach at best. Judging from his history, I fear McClaughan has the potential to miss again and possibly screw up our two 1st round picks this year, especially if he fails to take an elite offensive tackle. I’ll give him one last chance this year (as if I had a choice) but honestly, I have no faith in his “philosophy”.

Originally posted by vermonator:
So far, I’d give McClaughan a C- grade, as drafts in 2006 and 2007 where decent but those in 2005 and 2008 where just terrible (jury is still out for '09). My main concern is his ability to recognize talent where others don't (see Walsh). He picked up some good value guys that fell because of various character and health concerns but he hasn't struck gold in the later rounds by pure vision. In hindsight, we now know that Balmer was not the best player available however, most questioned the pick even back then. He's failed miserably as far as bringing in quality offensive lineman, both in the draft and free agency. Staley may be his best move, but when you consider that it cost us a 4th rounder along with the 7th pick in '08, I’d consider him a reach at best. Judging from his history, I fear McClaughan has the potential to miss again and possibly screw up our two 1st round picks this year, especially if he fails to take an elite offensive tackle. I’ll give him one last chance this year but honestly, I have no faith in his “philosophy”.

There are different opinions on who are the elite OT's in this class. Some think only 3 of the 5 potential 1st round OT's are worthy of top 20 selections, others think 4 or all 5 are worthy and some think there are only 4 OT's who merit 1st round grades. He may not even touch an OT in the 1st round if he feels there are players he has ranked higher on our board who are available at our pick. Temper your expectations as his board may not look the the one you would put together.

GP!!

Originally posted by excelsior:
Gee, if I was SF's GM, I could buy a draft magazine and do better than Balt, GB, and Phil just because of the number of first round picks and because our team was so poor that many of our picks were high where elite players were available.

If its that easy, why are there so many busts at the top of the first round? Why do bad teams stay bad so long when they always draft so high?

2007 was a hella good draft

I think McC has been excellent drafting in the first round. He gets pro-bowlers at a 33% rate (which will go up when Crabtree gets there) and he drafts starters at well over a 50% rate. Those are excellent numbers for any GM drafting in the first round.

He is also pretty good at finding talent that falls lower than it should. He usually gets these players in the 4-5th rounds. I don't know what the league average is for starters/contributors out of the 4th-5th rounds, but I would imagine he is competitive with his draft picks in those later rounds.

His biggest area of weakness so far has been the 2nd and 3rd rounders.

Overall I would still give him a B+, but he needs to start finding more talent in rounds 2-3.