MM's draft article: another way to get OT.

are u guys forgetting that we basically invented drafting o-line in lower rounds and coaching them up to be good??? i'm not very familiar with solari, but he seems to fit what we want a lot more then that morons we've had before. now i'm not saying that you dont draft a good tackle high but i'm really hoping that we can get a lot more out of who ever we have via coaching.

also what about moving staley back to the right side and having that high draft pick on the left or getting that guy MM said was a better LT prospect. i really like staley better on the left side. i also really want to replace baas. imho he sucks.

Originally posted by ninersush:
are u guys forgetting that we basically invented drafting o-line in lower rounds and coaching them up to be good??? i'm not very familiar with solari, but he seems to fit what we want a lot more then that morons we've had before. now i'm not saying that you dont draft a good tackle high but i'm really hoping that we can get a lot more out of who ever we have via coaching.

also what about moving staley back to the right side and having that high draft pick on the left or getting that guy MM said was a better LT prospect. i really like staley better on the left side. i also really want to replace baas. imho he sucks.

in order for that to happen we need to have a good o line now so when they come they train to become a good T and they dont star immeadietly

yes ideally thats what you'd want but reality is that whoever we draft we could plug in along 2 maybe 3 spots on the line we currently have (baas, snyder, maybe rachal).
if we had good management and related continuity then u can execute the plan of drafting and having guys sit and learn but we have none of that. so we need to plug in for poor players and hope coaching will catch them up.

i'm also not complete sold on this philosophy of getting the biggest mother possible. our lines from the 80s & 90s had smaller but quick guys and i'd say they turned out fairly well.

We need OL even if it means reach.

end thread

Id be all for trading next years picks. There might not even be a 2011 season with a threat of a lockout on the horizon.

Do it!

This wasn't a poll, on purpose, in that I was more interested in thot content than # folks for trading up (whether using this yr's draft picks or bundling one of our #1s with a pick in 2011), but it looks like there is good opinion for as well as against trading up.
My thots remain those of MM, as they have been for sometime now, with added possibility of using one of 2011 picks in a trade up. I do think we can get good value at #17, and at #13 as well. I just don't think this team can struggle thru yet another yr with baas=heitmann=rags= snyder. To me these guys are all pretty equal, and are very decent backups...but NOT starters. Even with Bob McKittrick around , i think he would have had trouble coaxing more than 1 starter out of this group. Essentially, we have picked one guy for our OL in first rd, and that is it. He is also our best starter. The rest have been later rd 2-4 picks, and it has showed.

Think about it. Our QB can't pass, our RB can't run, our TEs can't get thrown to, nor can our WRs...all because our OL can't block. Sure, they have had good days, but for week in-week out, our weakest link on this team is OL. We need not one starter on OL but TWO...OT and OG, and a C while we are at it. But 2 would be fine. Getting an all pro OT really means taking a slot probably at #4. We could get one of the top OTs up to #8, but after that i doubt it. If we are gonna make a run for Okung, it probably should be at slot #4, possibly #5. And that is where i think we should aim to trade up to. If we end up with the 4th best OT in the draft that is great. If we move up, however, I would really hope they do it right and shoot for #4 slot. The Skins kind of crossed us up taking McNabb, so now they too will be competing for Okung. I am positive they will take an OT to protect their "new" Qb. How come every team understands that except the 9ers drafting staff of last 5 yrs?

I hope we don't trade our two Ist rounders to move up. Is one player going to put this team over the top? I don't think so.

we need a good oline. without a good oline we will never make the damn playoffs. We have 1 starting tackle and 1 guard and he is questionable. that's it. we need more end of story

But haven't you heard? According to the webzone, Alex Boone will be the greatest offensive tackle in NFL history. So evidently tackle is not an area of need at all.

This is the reason why we had that early OTA. They needed to know if thay had to trade up to get the RT the Niners truly need or if they could just sit back and take 2 tackles in the later rounds. The Niners could also trade back in the first and take Brown from USC. I just think it would be a mistake to give up picks to draft the big 3 OT.

I think it's a good idea. If we pick up a good player at right tackle, our pick will be a lot lower next year (maybe low 20's). Especially with our weak division. I think nows the time to make a play. We can't let the chips fall anymore.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Matt's usually good insight made for a great article and if you haven't read it, you missed a good read. Rather than bundle our #13 and # 17(or other combinations with our 3rd or 4th pick) to move into top 4-10 slots, there is yet another way to get that OT which we MUST have. How about considering using a pick from next yr, maybe our #2 or #3, plus one of our firsts this yr? Matt pretty well covered all the bases, but getting our OL straightened out this yr is our # 1 priority. His suggestions are all well conceieved, but I am just suggesting using a 2nd or 3rd from next yr so we could still preserve our second first rounder this yr.

It will boil down to what the draft team wants at #17 this yr, eg, Iupati, to solidify this OL, assuming we can trade up. Usually I don't like trading away relatively high picks from the next yr, but we have an OL that has been neglected so long, and is so short on talent that I cannot see us not taking both a top 2 or 3 OT, but also an OG...my guess is if we really feel Iupati is that good, we can fix an OL that has roughly 4 good backups, but no real starters. It is tough to draft virtually an entire OL from 2nd to 4th rounders and expect them to play at all pro caliber. Frankly, Scot's philosophy that "we don't pay $7mil for an all pro OG"(Hutchinson, Faneca) as well as "you can always get good OLinemen in 2nd to 4th rounds" has been a disaster for us. We have to build our OL now. Using a 2nd or 3rd rounder from next yr and adding him to our # 13 this yr would accomplish the above.

Solari and Brown may be great. But you still need talent to have a pro caliber OL. We don't. This is the time, but we need to get into the 4th thru 8th position to guarantee it. Washington taking McNabb released the SKINS to build their OL. We have to trade up to get our OT...either as MM laid out, or by borrowing a pick from next yr.

Gimme a Tackle and a Center on 1st day. I would swap a high pick for next year with another 1st or a high 2nd. would have to package up our 3rd or 4th depending on the timing of the offer in order to do that however.

Freakin Lynch and his carbon copy reporting thinks we should package up both 1st to move up. Which is nuts cause at worst I think that we'd have to cough up a 1st and a 3rd and possibly a 2nd or 3rd from next year at most. That's damn good value for moving up.

#17 and 3rd this year and #2 or #3 next year should give us the ability to move up. Seattle won't trade out for anything less than both 1sts. Fokk those Rats. Same with St. Louis and Chokeland. Everyone else I believe would make that deal.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by lamontb:
Bad idea simply b/c none of these OT's in this year's draft are worth trading up for. None of these guys are elite. Just got to see how things fall. If they miss out on the top 4 guys then they have to go by their board, but no need to trade up for this group of OT's.

I concur. No elites . . . not even Okung. He is the most competent of the lot, but even he is not worth trading up for, given what the team would have to give up. Sit pat and take what falls to you. There are some good prospective OTs this year, but NOONE the Niners should break the bank for.

IMO Okung is not as good as Oher was last year. And Oher was a #23 pick. Admittedly, one is ill advised comparing between years. However my point is: Hope the team does not reach for a need at a position that is weak in the draft. Especially at the expense of picking up great talent in other positions which the team also has need for. The first round, in particular, should be for BPA. Period. You can reach in later rounds.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
This wasn't a poll, on purpose, in that I was more interested in thot content than # folks for trading up (whether using this yr's draft picks or bundling one of our #1s with a pick in 2011), but it looks like there is good opinion for as well as against trading up.
My thots remain those of MM, as they have been for sometime now, with added possibility of using one of 2011 picks in a trade up. I do think we can get good value at #17, and at #13 as well. I just don't think this team can struggle thru yet another yr with baas=heitmann=rags= snyder. To me these guys are all pretty equal, and are very decent backups...but NOT starters. Even with Bob McKittrick around , i think he would have had trouble coaxing more than 1 starter out of this group. Essentially, we have picked one guy for our OL in first rd, and that is it. He is also our best starter. The rest have been later rd 2-4 picks, and it has showed.

Think about it. Our QB can't pass, our RB can't run, our TEs can't get thrown to, nor can our WRs...all because our OL can't block. Sure, they have had good days, but for week in-week out, our weakest link on this team is OL. We need not one starter on OL but TWO...OT and OG, and a C while we are at it. But 2 would be fine. Getting an all pro OT really means taking a slot probably at #4. We could get one of the top OTs up to #8, but after that i doubt it. If we are gonna make a run for Okung, it probably should be at slot #4, possibly #5. And that is where i think we should aim to trade up to. If we end up with the 4th best OT in the draft that is great. If we move up, however, I would really hope they do it right and shoot for #4 slot. The Skins kind of crossed us up taking McNabb, so now they too will be competing for Okung. I am positive they will take an OT to protect their "new" Qb. How come every team understands that except the 9ers drafting staff of last 5 yrs?

Man, I disagree with you on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

Firstly, the weakest link on our team is the coaching. The ability to establish a workable identity and then coach to that purpose is the teams most glaring weakness. It's easy to bag on the OL because our offense sucks, but it goes a whole lot deeper than that. I don't believe that the OL is even the teams second biggest weakness . . . but I won't go there. Let's get a creditable program in place and then evaluate where we are.

On a positive note: Signs are that Solari and Brown are conducting an OL evaluation. They are new. Right there we may have upgraded our OL. Give them a chance to reach some conclusions before we pre-judge them or our roster.

"Our QB can't pass, our RB can't run, our TEs can't get thrown to, nor can our WRs...all because our OL can't block"!!!?? Well . . . I saw our RB run through the line UNTOUCHED on long runs. I saw the TE catch more TDs than any other TE in the league, etc. Admittedly, they didn't do it consistently, but they were physically capable. How many times was our QB sacked in the second half of the season, when the only guy that belongs on the OL (according to you) wasn't even playing? It's all possible with the right coaching and scheming. Sims (who is widely thought of as a total failure) arguably played better than your man Staley at LT. Here's a thought: If we didn't get anyone new for the OL but moved Staley back to RT and let Sims man LT, would the line totally collapse? No. Supplement this with better play-calling, more efficient QB play and add a game-changing speed guy in a skill position to make opposing defenses play honest; are you seriously suggesting that it wouldn't make a huge difference?

Now, I'm not saying that we don't get a OT. Sure. it's a position of need. But it's not the ONLY position of need. We'd all like to have an OL populated by all-Pros at every position. It's not going to happen. Which team in the NFL has that? Moreover, none of the prospects being mentioned in the first round will make the necessary difference without the right coaching and scheming. Certainly no one OT will have that turn-around affect that your implying without some MAJOR help.

I'm totally against giving up the possibilty of upgrading the roster by relinquishing SEVERAL early picks for ONE perceived solution that could easily turn out to be a FAIL. I don't see anyone you're suggesting that is worth that.

Why is everyone so intent on trading away picks in the deepest draft in years!