There are 150 users in the forums
Originally posted by Rascal:
I don't think this thread is talking about the intricacies and details of how the 2014 Draft should be approached, but rather the general concept of trading up to secure a top WR talent in future drafts.
Originally posted by Rascal:
In the 2012 regular season, the 9ers were ranked 23rd in Passing Offense with 3,298 yards. Out of that 3,298 yards, 1,105 yards was contributed by Crab which represented 33.5 % of the total production. The next highest contributor was Vernon with 548 yards which was only 49.6% of Crab's production. That remaining 2,193 yards were contributed by a total of no less than 11 other targets including Mario, Kyle, Randy, Vernon, Delanie, Frank, Kendall, LaMike, Bruce, Garrek and Ted.
What does that tell you ? I think is more than apparent we do need that No. 1 WR without a question.
If we without question need that number 1 WR now, it makes sense to talk about the intricacies and details of the 2014 draft. Wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by Rascal:
If we without question need that number 1 WR now, it makes sense to talk about the intricacies and details of the 2014 draft. Wouldn't you agree?
Not when you want to talk about our draft position and trading up partner. Those are pure rhetorical questions. It cannot be done.
ThOriginally posted by GNielsen:
Maiocco has some very relevant points here in his latest article linked on the Webzone home page:
"Just think about Tom Brady. Until Wes Welker and Randy Moss came to the New England Patriots, Brady never had a true No. 1 receiver. He won his three Super Bowls with a different No. 1 receiver each time: Troy Brown, Deion Branch and David Givens."
"Evidence seems to suggest that No. 1 receiver has very little impact on the bottom line. Crabtree was one of 20 players in the NFL to amass 1,000 yards or more receiving last season. Eleven of those players were on teams that did not even advance to the playoffs."
"There were years in which the Indianapolis Colts' corps of wide receivers was decimated by injuries, and the offense just kept putting up big numbers with Peyton Manning."
He starts his article by talking about '97, which we've talked about here, when the Niners lost the best receiver in football in their first game of the season. TO was in his second season and ended up with 7 or 8 hundred yards and JJ Stokes contributed. His point is that the key was Steve Young, just as the key to the Colts was Manning and Brady for the Patriots.
So, the key here is Kaepernick - if he can perform at a high level this season, the Niners will be fine.
Originally posted by buck:
ThOriginally posted by GNielsen:
Maiocco has some very relevant points here in his latest article linked on the Webzone home page:
"Just think about Tom Brady. Until Wes Welker and Randy Moss came to the New England Patriots, Brady never had a true No. 1 receiver. He won his three Super Bowls with a different No. 1 receiver each time: Troy Brown, Deion Branch and David Givens."
"Evidence seems to suggest that No. 1 receiver has very little impact on the bottom line. Crabtree was one of 20 players in the NFL to amass 1,000 yards or more receiving last season. Eleven of those players were on teams that did not even advance to the playoffs."
"There were years in which the Indianapolis Colts' corps of wide receivers was decimated by injuries, and the offense just kept putting up big numbers with Peyton Manning."
He starts his article by talking about '97, which we've talked about here, when the Niners lost the best receiver in football in their first game of the season. TO was in his second season and ended up with 7 or 8 hundred yards and JJ Stokes contributed. His point is that the key was Steve Young, just as the key to the Colts was Manning and Brady for the Patriots.
So, the key here is Kaepernick - if he can perform at a high level this season, the Niners will be fine.
The more that I hear, the more that it becomes clear the many knowledgeable people feel that having a "franchise wide receiver" is at least somewhat overrated, and perhaps even greatly overrated.
While getting a franchise wide receive can not really be bad, I tend to think that making the getting of a franchise wide receiver a critical foundational element in your draft stratergy would be a major mistake.
Limiting your search for a franchise wide receiver to only those receivers who are at least 6 feet 3 inches or taller would be a folly.
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by Rascal:
If we without question need that number 1 WR now, it makes sense to talk about the intricacies and details of the 2014 draft. Wouldn't you agree?
Not when you want to talk about our draft position and trading up partner. Those are pure rhetorical questions. It cannot be done.
True, we do not know our draft position now, but we will know our draft position about five months before the draft. It will be extremely relevant before the draft. This is one of the reasons that I feel the discussion is a premature at this point.
There has been much discussion of positives and negatives trading up in the thread. To trade up we will need a trading partner, and I agree that at this point at this point, we do not have a clue as to who our possible trading partners might be.
Before the draft, we will be able to look at teams ahead of us, evaluate their team needs, and have at least a chance of identifying potential trading partners. Since we do not have a clue about our possible trading partners, the discussions of trades does seem to be both premature and purely theoretical at this time.
At this point, any discussion of trading up seems theoretical or hypothetical,and perhaps even rhetorical.
Originally posted by Rascal:
Of course the discussion is theoretical because you have to agree on the principle first before you put it into action. So, there is no point to bring up points about draft position nor trading up partner cos you simply can't.
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by Rascal:
Of course the discussion is theoretical because you have to agree on the principle first before you put it into action. So, there is no point to bring up points about draft position nor trading up partner cos you simply can't.
The principle that you want us to adopt is that we need a Wide Receiver that has top notch measurables.
You prefer a wide receiver that is at least 6'3" and ideally weigh more than 220 lbs and fast enough to burn and take the top off double teams.
I think it will be difficult to reach a consenus that your preferences are the proper standards that we should use to pick a franchise wide receiver.
Any standards for a wide receiver that automatically exclude a Jerry Rice do not seems like reasonable standards, wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by buck:
From 2007, the year Calvin Johnson was drafted, to the present 318 wide receivers have attended the combine. (limited to those whose heights were listed)
Of those, 57 were 6 feet 3inchers or taller (17.92 %).
The other 261 were less than 6 feet 3 inches (82.08%).
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by buck:
From 2007, the year Calvin Johnson was drafted, to the present 318 wide receivers have attended the combine. (limited to those whose heights were listed)
Of those, 57 were 6 feet 3inchers or taller (17.92 %).
The other 261 were less than 6 feet 3 inches (82.08%).
Yeah, I agree it doesn't matter if the guy is 5'10 or 6'4" but it does matter if he can get open and catch passes. Just was surprised by the top fifteen guys in yards last year...most over 6'2". Would I not want Steve Smith at 5'9"? I'd take (a young) someone like him in a heartbeat!