Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
I'm disappointed with your logic MD. I value your opinion, and strongly agree that judging someone in 6 games is insane, however your logic doesn't add up. The Peterson argument specifically frustrates me. By that logic, you are either assuming that every team has the player they pick in the 1st round as the #1 player on their board, or they should trade the farm to trade up. Was Peterson the first player on our board? maybe. Did we trade for him? no. But there are two parts to the equation. How much better is he than the guy you're going to draft? and what is that going to cost you? I'm sure that everyone outside the top 3 does not draft the #1 player on their board. So who was going to trade with us? AZ who wanted Peterson also? Cincy who had their heart set on AJ Green? Carolina? Denver? Buffalo? They all wanted players who would have been gone by our pick, and would have required the farm for a trade. We couldn't offer that much for 2 reasons: 1. Baalke knew he wanted to draft a QB later in the draft and needed not only the 2nd round pick, but also other ammunition. 2. Last I checked Peterson is not Andrew Luck...you don't trade the farm for CBs! Then you say he got "lucky" with Aldon Smith. Again, by that logic every team is lucky. The Colts were lucky with Manning, someone will get lucky with (excuse the inadvertent pun) Luck. Other than that, drafting is a skill. Aldon Smith was the top rated player on our board, we wanted to trade down to get him later, and we chose him over players that many thought we would take. Completely unfair to call that luck. You think Watt will be better? Fine. Very possible. You think it's too early to tell if Aldon will actually be good? That's fair again. But to call a pick lucky? Come on! Same logic goes for FAs. We all know that loosing teams have to do more to get FAs, and sometimes the player doesn't even consider non-playoff teams. But back to my point... we had a value assigned to certain players, and if another team valued them higher, then we stopped competing. That's what you're supposed to do! If you value someone at $3MM/yr, and someone pays them $9MM/yr (random #s) then you didn't fail, you stuck to your guns. As for the 1 year players, I hardly doubt we'll have much trouble re-signing the ones we want. Rodgers has stated he wants to stay here long term. Ginn took a pay cut to stay. I'm sure he'll resign. Alex will do as Harbaugh says. Morgan will have a long term deal before the season ends, and any judgement on Edwards should be saved until he actually plays (how did you say that he was a mistake on Baalke's part? He go injured in game 2! How do you predict that?). You really think signing Costanzo will be an issue? The other 1 year contract guys? Who cares? Too early to tell how good Baalke is, I agree, but reading your review I can't help but see an agenda to be skeptical. Unfair criticism for much of it.
The process you adopt in player personnel matters is critical to get the guys you want on the field. Can you get everyone you want? Surely not. However, Baalke's approach has been passive: we will wait and see what is left over for us. That was his approach in the draft this year, and was his approach in free agency. There were a few exceptions, but the pattern is one of passivity. That is my criticism. In the end, to me, this is not the way to build a franchise. You may end up hitting on some players by being passive (look at the crazy draft the Bengals put together with the worst scouting department in the NFL), but in the end, I believe it is a long-range losing application.
I am not calling the pick of Smith lucky, but the process in landing him. You wanted to go up, but didn't make the bold move. You wanted to go down, but didn't find takers. You select what is left over as a third option, and may have hit.
The Niners and the one-year contracts signed are going to have to make some serious tough decisions because these players are not going to be as cheap next year. Smith is going to cost a LOT more money in 2012 if both sides decide to work something out. Rogers is going to be very pricy. Snyder is now a starter, not a backup. Ginn is going to want more money next year.
I am skeptical of Baalke. I may be wrong in the end, but I think his approach is not a long-term winning approach.
Actually, he did make the bold move. He knew his most important move was to get a QB and he moved up and got him. Last year he moved up and got Anthony Davis. He caught a lot of criticism for both. Again, I'm not praising Baalke, but I think the criticism you suggest is not representative of his actions. The idea that you sell the farm every time is clearly not what you're suggesting. He chose QB the position that he went after and attacked. BTW, what current successful franchise constantly signs big name free agents and trades up in the draft?