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

Originally posted by KRS-1:

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.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of… Great GMs go after the player they want, achieving both need and BPA. I'm afraid that if he sits and waits for BPA then we’re in trouble. There's no starting offensive tackles available in free agency and anybody taken past the first round will be a project. I would respect McClaughan much more if he aggressively traded up to get the best offensive tackle than just sit there and take the BPA. If it takes our 13th and a second to move up and take Okung, do it. We move Staley to RT and instantly upgraded two positions. Otherwise whom do we get, does it improve our overall team or just depth? Imagine if Walsh stayed packed and didn’t move up to take Rice, just imagine…

Any amateur mock draft enthusiast can sit and take the best player available at 13, but where's the vision?

Great post KRS-1

-9fA

My biggest complaint with McCloughan is his inability to draft an o-line.

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
My biggest complaint with McCloughan is his inability to draft an o-line.

Same here. To be honest, I really like what he has done with every other area of the team. The talent on the team now compared to before he got his is better by leaps and bounds.

People seem to forget that it wasnt too long ago that we had Jamie Winborn, Mike Rumph, Mike Adams, Taylor Jacobs, Kevan Barlow, Kwame Harris, Tim Rattay, Ken Dorsey, etc all listed as starters. None of them should have been starters, and some of them should not have even been second string.

I still dont think there has been a team with less talent than that 2004 49ers squad ever since. I think the 1-15 Dolphins and 0-16 Lions would have beaten that team. It just so happened that the Cardinals were still some of the biggest chokes in the league.

Originally posted by TheRatMan13:

Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
My biggest complaint with McCloughan is his inability to draft an o-line.

Same here. To be honest, I really like what he has done with every other area of the team. The talent on the team now compared to before he got his is better by leaps and bounds.

People seem to forget that it wasnt too long ago that we had Jamie Winborn, Mike Rumph, Mike Adams, Taylor Jacobs, Kevan Barlow, Kwame Harris, Tim Rattay, Ken Dorsey, etc all listed as starters. None of them should have been starters, and some of them should not have even been second string.

I still dont think there has been a team with less talent than that 2004 49ers squad ever since. I think the 1-15 Dolphins and 0-16 Lions would have beaten that team. It just so happened that the Cardinals were still some of the biggest chokes in the league.

Donahue was a b*****d, and what's worse is that he actually gave cap-bonuses to these losers!

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Interesting. Other teams add to their lines - particularly OL almost every season. There's a reason we don't have depth.

I noticed that to. I'm under impression that with Donahue (now that's a s**tty GM) cleaned house of skill position players and since skill players take longer to develop we have been forced to pick skill positions more than is normal. I also think from this point on for the next couple of draft years the line on both sides will be the focus.

Great post, but shouldn't this thread be in the Draft section?

You can stare at a list of names on paper forever and convince yourself it looks good but at the end of the day, how much did the players we draft contribute to us winning games compared to the players Baltimore and Philly drafted since 2005?

I don't care if we have a Patrick Willis caliber player at every position, if we can't win games and get to the playoffs it's all meaningless.

Originally posted by vermonator:

Originally posted by KRS-1:

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.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of… Great GMs go after the player they want, achieving both need and BPA. I'm afraid that if he sits and waits for BPA then we’re in trouble. There's no starting offensive tackles available in free agency and anybody taken past the first round will be a project. I would respect McClaughan much more if he aggressively traded up to get the best offensive tackle than just sit there and take the BPA. If it takes our 13th and a second to move up and take Okung, do it. We move Staley to RT and instantly upgraded two positions. Otherwise whom do we get, does it improve our overall team or just depth? Imagine if Walsh stayed packed and didn’t move up to take Rice, just imagine…

That's subject to opinion. Packers GM Ted Thompson believes in building through the draft and almost exclusively taking the BPA regardless of position. While last year he did not do that mainly because of good depth and talent at WR and a lack of dependable bodies on the DL for the new 3-4 scheme, he did do just that when he took Brian Brohm in the 2nd round with Aaron Rodgers already entrenched as the Packers QB of the future (a QB who had been groomed for 3 years by Bret Favre).

Last year Scot sat and waited, and reports said he would have taken Oher had Crabtree not been there. Oher fell into the 20's, no other team successfully traded up or saw him as a tremendous value until the Ravens did.

As far as all OT's outside the 1st round being "projects", there are guys who could possibly step in from day 1 and start right away. It has happened many of times in the NFL that 2nd and 3rd round talents at the OT position have came in and started from day 1 and will continue to happen. We would be better off not trading away picks especially either of our 1st's or 2nd to move up and instead look to take the BPA's as we still need talent at multiple positions. RT alone is not going to guarantee us the division or a wildcard playoff berth.

FWIW if Walsh didn't trade up for Rice, there is a chance he could have slid to us anyhow as he didn't exactly light the world on fire with his 40 time. There is no way of ever knowing. Imagine if Scot traded UP for Crabtree, would have been a waste of a pick to secure him when as luck would have it he happened to slide to us.

Originally posted by scopur49er:
You can stare at a list of names on paper forever and convince yourself it looks good but at the end of the day, how much did the players we draft contribute to us winning games compared to the players Baltimore and Philly drafted since 2005?

I don't care if we have a Patrick Willis caliber player at every position, if we can't win games and get to the playoffs it's all meaningless.

The point of this thread flew right over your head.

Originally posted by vermonator:
Great post, but shouldn't this thread be in the Draft section?

It's a comparison of our GM vs 3 other well respected GM's. It's trying to prove or disprove of the job he has been doing. It has nothing to do with this year's class or who we should take.

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?

then you should take coaching into consideration. Players (even high first round picks) need appropriate coaching, instruction, and motivation. It is clear that Nolan (and his staff) did not do that properly. One can readily see that when Sing came in two years ago. Players (who we assumed were not good) started to play well. GM only picks the parts. The coaches have to put it together.

The point I have been trying to make is that the degree to which McC has appeared to do well is because, using a poker metaphor, he has been able to play the game with many extra Aces and Kings being dealt to him as compared to the GMs of Balt, GB and Phil.

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by vermonator:
Great post, but shouldn't this thread be in the Draft section?

It's a comparison of our GM vs 3 other well respected GM's. It's trying to prove or disprove of the job he has been doing. It has nothing to do with this year's class or who we should take.

Well noted...

Can't help but bring up this years draft though.