An in-depth look at McCloughan's draft/trade/free agency moves (2005-2010)

Originally posted by GEEK:

Originally posted by WINiner:
I applaud the effort, but mostly disagree with the majority of your grading. It is sooo flawed imo that I lack the motivation to point out where those flaws exist, I have other things to do with my morning.

I think you were generous in your grading to say the least, and have a very different view about Scott McC's drafting and FA signings. All the good signings were more Nolan then McC imo. Likewise the bad ones during the same stretch are as well.

It's pretty obvious who was the active one in FA if you compare our lvl of activity pre and post Nolan firing.

Then why even post something like this if you aren't able to debate me on my grading. lol.

I don't think my grading is that bad if you take into consideration the roles, capabilities, and expectations players like Walt Harris, Marques Douglas, and others had on the team.

Besides, the grading is just to quantify McCloughan's performance to help create the summary section. Do you disagree with my summary?

As I said, I had other things I had to do with my morning.

I actually do agree with your summary for the most part. I think the failure at QB, but more importantly not the selection of Smith, but rather the complete mismanagement, was indeed Scott's biggest failure.

I give him credit for effort in regards to the oline. I believe Jennings and Allen are more on Nolan then they are Scott, one being good the other a total waste. Scott did give effort in the draft toward addressing the oline, but he missed so completely with his picks to this point that it is hard to give the credit for effort.

Your grading was generous was my disagreement in the initial response, my bad if I didn't make that clear.

Very nice job Geek. Thx for the had work.

nice post


As someone pointed out, Scotty should have spent more time putting together a good O-line.

lol nolan was the one that wanted alex smith and was the one that picked him not mccloghan

the sad thing is that the niners front office DID try to address the OL in the draft with high draft picks

Staley-1st
Rachal-2nd
Baas-2nd

remember smiley-2nd

it is a combo of our ol coaching as well as the players not performing up to their status let alone the status of an nfl O lineman. Besides Smiley and Staley, the 2 guards who were at or near the top of the guard class of their years are doing very bad . Let's hope we get Pitts and next year Baas will probably get taken through free agency (and probably do better on another team).

It is pretty obvious our front office can't evaluate talent when it comes to the OL, especially the Guards. That is why we need to address that part of our team trhough FA not so much the draft......that is where the niners made their mistake and that has made Alex look a lot worse than he is and helped to contribute to his Injury that derailed him..

Fix the OL, fix the team.

I agree pretty much, I don't agree with you on some of the pick rankings, (Kentwan Balmer is better than you are giving him credit for and you aren't hard enough on him for some other picks which I thought were very mediocre) but I'm not going to go too much into that. Minor disagreements but I think for the most part it's fair.

My main disagreement however is you analysis of Alex Smith. The Niners didn't draft him with the idea that he would be a game manager. You can't get on Scott for that. The problem with the Alex pick was that Nolan and McCloughan did not come up with a cohesive plan in terms of handling their prized quarterback who was obviously extremely raw but talented. They failed at building a line that could keep Alex upright (though they tried all their pickups backfired), threw him in way too early and didn't surround him with continuity (although they tried to bring in well regarded offensive minds they just backfired and they didn't bring in a viable backup plan). I think it was more mishandling and bungled offensive line pickups then only wanting him to be a game manager.

Originally posted by elguapo:
the sad thing is that the niners front office DID try to address the OL in the draft with high draft picks

Staley-1st
Rachal-2nd
Baas-2nd

remember smiley-2nd

it is a combo of our ol coaching as well as the players not performing up to their status let alone the status of an nfl O lineman. Besides Smiley and Staley, the 2 guards who were at or near the top of the guard class of their years are doing very bad . Let's hope we get Pitts and next year Baas will probably get taken through free agency (and probably do better on another team).

It is pretty obvious our front office can't evaluate talent when it comes to the OL, especially the Guards. That is why we need to address that part of our team trhough FA not so much the draft......that is where the niners made their mistake and that has made Alex look a lot worse than he is and helped to contribute to his Injury that derailed him..

Fix the OL, fix the team.

Ya, I remember Smiley. I remember Scotty saying something along the lines of, not paying guards big money or something like that.

It would have taken me 6 years to post that...

What about the Patriots system makes Banta-Cain play so well. Dude lead their team in sacks last year and played well for them before coming to SF

The #1 argument that drives me crazy about the pro SM crowd is about how we are in better shape now than when he started.

Bull$hit...and you all know it. Our roster may be improved but having your best record as .500 in 5 years DAMN WELL SUCKS. I don't care what you say.

You could have put any retard in his position and we would have a better roster now than 5 years ago...there was no where to go but up.

His OL picks have been shotty at best and he completely fails to pay the cash or make a trade for a legit QB.

RECEIVERS -- You made a good point - and nobody is talking about it. We all realize our WRs have been lame for years, but until you listed all the crazy names we've had at WR, I didn't realize how many times we've gotten that so WRONG.

Coach SULLIVAN has to share some of the blame for that wouldn't you think? Wouldn't he have input on the WR evaluations on who to get in FA?? And even if not, he hasn't been able to get much out of any of them.

On your list:
1. The Jennings signing was a prayer -- we overpaid for a player that everyone else wouldn't touch due to injuries and it didn't work out for us. I would grade that lower.

2. Lawson - I'd say that grade should be lower, he is an average contributor for being a 1st round pick - AND we gave away picks to get into the 1st for him if I remember correctly.

3. Delanie Walker - everyone is still in love with his potential, and year in and year out it goes unrealized. There is a reason other teams don't pick these tweener players - they aren't the mismatch people dream they will be.

4. Jackson - McCloughan of all people should have known we shouldn't have traded for him!!

5. TBC - I don't know if I blame McCloughan for this, he is productive for the Patriots and yet our Coaching staff can't get anything from him??

6. I don't give McCloughan any credit for Spikes or Ble (sp?) he wouldn't have signed these guys except injuries forced his hand - and yet they were good players for us.

7. Brooks - He has had flashes - but so do a lot of players. I think it is WAY to early to say he will a good player for us for years to come. IMHO he is still just as likely to not work out.

Great points though on his failures at WR and OL. The failure to address the RT position for years is baffling.

Good idea for a post, appreciate all the work. Although I don't agree with a few of your opinions I agree with almost all of it. McC is a great talent evaluator and I appreciate all the work he did. Imagine what this team would be like if they'd drafted Rodgers over Smith.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Good post and I'll just quickly summarize some reactions:

1) No GM should get an A for selecting a contributor in the 1st round, especially within the top 10 picks. If you can't evaluate talent enough to know if someone isn't a bust in the first 10 picks, you shouldn't be a GM in the NFL.

2) Snyder to me isn't a B, he's more like a C-. If you're drafting a OL guy in the 4th round, he's contributing more than just depth.

Just my initial reaction.

Fair points. I don't agree with your first, but I think you are right about Snyder.

Originally posted by HearstFan:
RECEIVERS -- You made a good point - and nobody is talking about it. We all realize our WRs have been lame for years, but until you listed all the crazy names we've had at WR, I didn't realize how many times we've gotten that so WRONG.

Coach SULLIVAN has to share some of the blame for that wouldn't you think? Wouldn't he have input on the WR evaluations on who to get in FA?? And even if not, he hasn't been able to get much out of any of them.

On your list:
1. The Jennings signing was a prayer -- we overpaid for a player that everyone else wouldn't touch due to injuries and it didn't work out for us. I would grade that lower.

2. Lawson - I'd say that grade should be lower, he is an average contributor for being a 1st round pick - AND we gave away picks to get into the 1st for him if I remember correctly.

3. Delanie Walker - everyone is still in love with his potential, and year in and year out it goes unrealized. There is a reason other teams don't pick these tweener players - they aren't the mismatch people dream they will be.

4. Jackson - McCloughan of all people should have known we shouldn't have traded for him!!

5. TBC - I don't know if I blame McCloughan for this, he is productive for the Patriots and yet our Coaching staff can't get anything from him??

6. I don't give McCloughan any credit for Spikes or Ble (sp?) he wouldn't have signed these guys except injuries forced his hand - and yet they were good players for us.

7. Brooks - He has had flashes - but so do a lot of players. I think it is WAY to early to say he will a good player for us for years to come. IMHO he is still just as likely to not work out.

Great points though on his failures at WR and OL. The failure to address the RT position for years is baffling.

I think it's a two way street. Sullivan can't turn s**t into gold, but he certainly could have tried to do a better job with some of the other talent that McCloughan brought in. At the same time, imagine you are an assistant coach and you have to teach different routes and terminology over and over again because of the turnover at the OC position.

The rest of your points are valid and I agree. My analysis is going to have some bias

Originally posted by bigwads:
The #1 argument that drives me crazy about the pro SM crowd is about how we are in better shape now than when he started.

Bull$hit...and you all know it. Our roster may be improved but having your best record as .500 in 5 years DAMN WELL SUCKS. I don't care what you say.

You could have put any retard in his position and we would have a better roster now than 5 years ago...there was no where to go but up.

His OL picks have been shotty at best and he completely fails to pay the cash or make a trade for a legit QB.

I think we have better pieces to the puzzle for the coaching staff to utilize because of McCloughan (and Nolan) tenures with the 49ers. But you hit the nail on the head with the QB and offensive line issues - and that is what will truly define his legacy with the 49ers.

Originally posted by excelsior:
I applaud your effort, and commend your desire to scrutinize what McC's contribution has been.

However, I think you are an easy grader; too many A's and not enough B's and C's. As for the A+'s, these were more a function of the 49ers being a crappy team and He was able to draft high. If the team had done well, these players would not have been available to McC at the 20-25 slot.

The best way to evaluate whether a GM is building a superb team is to compare him to the other premier teams in the league. Take New Orleans, for example. Who did they have on their team five years ago? Who did they draft and who did they sign as FA's during that period? ARIZ is another team that came a long way during theat time.

I agree, the grades are too generous . . . . should be:
Snyder = C
Lawson = C
M. Robinson = C-
D. Walker = B
Joe Staley = C (considering we gave up the #6 overall pick)
T. Brown = B+

Plus you skipped his many late round picks, which were mostly bad. The good GM’s make their name by finding talent in the late rounds, and McC wasn’t particularly good in the late rounds.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by GEEK:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Good post and I'll just quickly summarize some reactions:

1) No GM should get an A for selecting a contributor in the 1st round, especially within the top 10 picks. If you can't evaluate talent enough to know if someone isn't a bust in the first 10 picks, you shouldn't be a GM in the NFL.

2) Snyder to me isn't a B, he's more like a C-. If you're drafting a OL guy in the 4th round, he's contributing more than just depth.

Just my initial reaction.

Fair points. I don't agree with your first, but I think you are right about Snyder.

I would like to know your opinion on this - and no worries this won't become a flame-out discussion. I'm just curious as to why people think a GM in the NFL should get an A on a pick in the top 10 who becomes a contributor.

IMHO, the grading curve should reward GMs for finding contributors/starters in rounds 3 through 5 versus 1 through 2.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if GM's can get F's for not taking the right guy in the top 10 then he should be able to get an A also. For example you have to give somebody an A for taking Manning over Ryan Leaf. Conversely, somebody on Arizona should get a F for drafting Levi Brown, over Adrian Peterson. Just like Scot should get an A for taking Willis over Carriker. i do think GM's should be graded on a curve like you mentioned. But selected teh correct player in the top 10 shouldn't be diminished. In terms of Scot he has done a horrible job with 2nd and 3rd picks minus Gore. He pretty much flushes 3rd picks down the drain.