Playing time for draft picks

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
Totally disagree.

You take the best guy available.

Lets look deeper....

RBs: Gore, Hunter, Jacobs, James. Harbaugh likes to run the hell out of his RBs. He did so at Stanford and he does so in SF. You need ALOT of RBs to run that offense. Guys get banged up and different guys play just to keep the others fresh. Can you couldnt on Gore to stay healthy? What happens next year if Gore is finished and Jacobs was only ona 1 year contract? Now you have Hunter and NOBODY? That can't happen on an offense that depends so much on the run game. Peeps will see james play in the next few years and will feel really dumb for having criticised the pick.

WRs: There were NO GUARANTEES that Moss would have anything left and Manningham wasn't exactly saught after and signed a small contract in SF. There were no guarantees there. Then they ALL played well, including Kyle WIlliams. Say all you want but Jenkins will be just fine.

Peeps have to STOP looking at all this through a 1 year lense. It doesn't work that way. If Jenkins can't get on the field in three years, then you have a point. Right now it ridiculous.

We should have already drafted Gore's replacement by now. Kendall Hunter is not an everydown back, neither is LaMichael James or Brandon Jacobs.

Sigh. I give up. SMDH.

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:
We should have already drafted Gore's replacement by now. Kendall Hunter is not an everydown back, neither is LaMichael James or Brandon Jacobs.

It's Dixon

Originally posted by KowboyKiller:

Originally posted by jimmythegreekjr:
We should have already drafted Gore's replacement by now. Kendall Hunter is not an everydown back, neither is LaMichael James or Brandon Jacobs.

It's Dixon

Yeah, that was on my wish list this season, hopefully we can protect him and get another season out of him, we have a crap ton of picks next year, I will be floored if one of them isn't an all purpose back.

By the way...search function, there is pretty much the same thread running already, but it has a cool chart...showing how little this draft class has played...

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by McLovinAlexSmith:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by McLovinAlexSmith:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by McLovinAlexSmith:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but you guys defending ORG on this are just wrong. I love what Baalke has done since he has been here and have defended him many times, but he screwed the pooch on this one.

We are in desperate need of quality depth at DL, OLB, and OL and also most would argue TE. Had we drafted at any of those positions #1 or #2 we would have had a contributer, and also an improved team. It is not ok, in todays NFL, to redshirt your #1 and #2 draft picks, barring key positions like QB. Just cant do it. This is not the old NFL, where vets played their whole careers for one team, and draft picks had to earn their spots over time. In todays NFL your #1 and #2 need to contribute.

Also contracts for 1st round picks are now 4 years, so to waste 25% of his contract to be red shirted is not smart football management.

Jeez...do any of you guys remember what it was like when this team was good? SMDH.

Yes I do Marvin but even then first and second round picks contributed unless they were complete crap.

SOME may have contributed, but not very much. Those were also the days BEFORE Free Agency so the ONLY way to fill a hole was the draft.

here look at the names during the 80s and 90s and most of those dudes played unless they were not good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_San_Francisco_49ers_first-round_draft_picks

How many of them made big contributions AS ROOKIES.

Other than Keith Delong all the other dudes started some games as rookies.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/niners/168237-nfl-draft-class-san-francisco-49ers-playing-time/

I predict a merger....

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
There is just no way to justify the redshirting of a #1 and #2 pick. Especially when you are redshirting both. No excuse.

We are not talking about a couple guys that only get a snap or two a game because we have a deep roster. We are talking about guys BURRIED on the depth chart. We have extreme depth problems at OLB, DL, OL, TE, but we are good enough to ignore that and draft a WR and RB that are not even active on game days? I dont buy that logic.

Sorry you don't buy it.

I like it. Yeah...they are buried on the depth chart NOW. What about NEXT year and beyond? Moss: 1 year deal. Jacobs: 1 year deal.
Manningham: 2 year deal. Gore: Getting older.

How the hell do you think the Patriots stay so good for so long? They take players BEFORE they need them because they can see the need down the road.

Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

So you don't really have a player in mind.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

So you don't really have a player in mind.

Do your own research. Anyone who followed the draft, or followed the draft pics available, and reasonble to target at those pics would know there were playmakers (or at the very least contibuters) to be had at poition of need.

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

So you don't really have a player in mind.

Do your own research. Anyone who followed the draft, or followed the draft pics available, and reasonble to target at those pics would know there were playmakers (or at the very least contibuters) to be had at poition of need.

Who would these so called impact players replace?

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

So you don't really have a player in mind.

Do your own research. Anyone who followed the draft, or followed the draft pics available, and reasonble to target at those pics would know there were playmakers (or at the very least contibuters) to be had at poition of need.

Who would these so called impact players replace?

Me, my draft choices were simple, Fleener, replaces Celek, and when Walker leaves for free agency, replaces Walker. Second round maybe a reach but I wanted Robert Turbin, replaces Dixon, after that best safety available, because Dashon will leave next season. Then best defender available all the way to the last pick.

3/7 are not even on the team (injury/cut)

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by IdahoNiner:
Im sorry, but weather or not an Inactive RB(Jacobs) or an over the hill WR stick around longer than a single year should not effect how you draft.

I understand your point Marvin i really do. But We had and do continue to have some glaring depth issues. BPA is a good formula, but you cant follow it so strict to where you hurt your football team in the upcoming season. Needs must be filled first, especially when they could contribute instantly. You dont reach, obviously, but you still have to draft based on need, while considering BPA. This year at #1 especially there were alot of players that could have contributed greatly.

Like who?

So you don't really have a player in mind.

Do your own research. Anyone who followed the draft, or followed the draft pics available, and reasonble to target at those pics would know there were playmakers (or at the very least contibuters) to be had at poition of need.

Who would these so called impact players replace?

Me, my draft choices were simple, Fleener, replaces Celek, and when Walker leaves for free agency, replaces Walker. Second round maybe a reach but I wanted Robert Turbin, replaces Dixon, after that best safety available, because Dashon will leave next season. Then best defender available all the way to the last pick.

Fleener would have been good but he isn't doing that great playing with his college QB so i don't know how well he would have did here in a lesser role. Turbin wouldn't have played this year and if we are replacing Dashon, I wouldn't want to do it with a late 3rd rounder. I think if we decide to let him walk, we replace him with a 1st round safety this year and we have alot of ammo to move up and get a real good player.

WR was a need and we took the highest rated guy available. Moss is a stopgap and Ginn will join him as a free agent at the end of the season. Kyle was a wildcard and he's played well so far. Looking forward, we have Crabtree, Manningham, Williams, and Jenkins. Jenkins will compete for a starting job next season, which is good because he'll understand the offense by then. That's good foresight by Baalke.

At RB, we have Gore, Hunter, Jacobs, Dixon and James. Jacobs was added for depth and he's no lock to finish the season with us. He doesn't fit into our long term plans. Dixon is just a serviceable big runner. Gore is getting older and Hunter is right on his heels. James was one of the most explosive players in NCAA. He'll be a nice compliment to Gore and Hunter. For as much as we run the ball, we need depth there.

I'd rather have a guy sit in the system for a year than throw a rookie on the field in desperation. We are fortunate to have a deep roster.

Most of the complaints are because we didn't address OT, DE, etc. to bolster those positions. So, you're mad that we didn't draft for depth at those positions? Either way, we drafted for depth.