Is It Time To Identify A Franchise WR ?

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by captain_planet:
Uhh. Don't franchise wide receivers usually identify themselves by catching lots of passes and gaining lots of yards and scoring lots of touchdowns?

What I am saying is to identify that top talent / potential franchise WR then go after him in the draft much like how the Falcons went after Julio Jones and the Lions going after Megatron. Whether their performance translate in the NFL is any matter, but there was no doubt both the Falcons and Lions had franchise WR in mind.

If the purpose of this thread is to identify a WR to select in next year's draft or discuss how high we should draft a WR next year, there's a draft forum for that. But just for fun, I'll throw out Jordan Matthews as a candidate. He's 6'3" good hands good production and Jerry Rice's cousin.

Originally posted by SaksV:
Hmm let's see. He was drafted high, true but didn't live up to First Round hype and plummeted in the depth chart quickly. If I recall, we drafted him to play opposite Jerry after John Taylor retired but he never caught on. Then we took T.O. the following season ('96) in the 3rd round and he beat out J.J. for the #2 job. So YES, heading into the 1997 season, J.J. Stokes was a 3rd string WR. Am I missing something?

No you don't recall correctly. Stokes was not drafted to be the #2 opposite Rice. Rice was getting old. Stokes was drafted to replace Rice as the #1 that is why the traded up at a high cost to get him. They had a man crush on the guy. That was a real head scratcher. They thought he was a franchise wr. Ironically this is the same kind of move that the treads author is proposing. In that case it was a major failure. The problem was they compared him ( his lack of athletic measurables) to Jerry Rice. Well Jerry was unique in that he transcended his physical shortcomings though hard work and desire. Plus his game speed was much faster than his combine times and thats not always so for everyone. I think the point the threads author is trying to make is that this front office might not be placing a high enough priority on the WR position. It seems to make sense that a team should to fill important core positions before it over spends on the skill positions. However once those core positions have been filled there is nothing wrong with identifying a special wr and trading up to get him (much like they did this year at safety) especially if you have a strong team and extra picks to use in trade. It would be smart to maximize the strength of you team ( QB) by giving them the tools to become more effective. Because of the cap it is easiest to do this through the draft but that would require trading up.

I think what the poster meant by Balkie being cute was his attempting to identify a hidden gem that other GM's had missed. That's kind of an Al Davis trait that will usually blow up in your face if you are not extremely gifted in that specific area. Rascal instead proposes that the NIner's instead identify a player that is more of a cant miss high reward prospect and utilize higher picks to trade up for them rather than go for a lower risk but more of a low reward reach at # 30. I mean Jenkins was a gamble were he was picked he just had too many red flags. I don't think there were any WR this last draft that were worth trading up to get. But that doesn't mean that that might not happen in the future. If a monster receiver becomes available there is no reason why the Niner's considering their loaded roster and extra draft picks shouldn't trade up to get him. That doesn't mean that just because they can that they should in a draft where the quality of wr's is at the high risk low reward level that the QB's were this draft. They need to be patient and wait for the right player to appear.

Every person has strengths and weaknesses. Just because a coach or GM is good at certain aspects of their job does not mean they are good in all of the aspect of their job. The same applies to recognizing talent. They may have blind spots in certain positions such as wr. So just because they have made excellent picks at many other positions does not mean we necessarily have to trust their evaluatory judgement at every position.

Originally posted by NickSh49:
No, I think he's suggesting we pull an Atlanta and trade up into the top ten next year to get a wide receiver. I THINK that's what he's saying.

He specifically talks about the Lions going after Calvin Johnson, but I think that you are right.

He talks about Falcons going after Julio Jones and in a response to you he talks about the Rams going after Tavon Austin.

Originally posted by Rascal:
In short, yes. But, I think in order to identify that "guy", it is probably a little more than just draft a good WR. What we are talking about here will probably involve a huge commitment from our side cos it may require trading up big time. A bit like how we traded up all the way to 18th to get Eric Reid this year, only it may be higher pending on how the draft falls. I am talking about get the guy at all costs much like how committed the Rams was in going up to 8th to get Tavon Austin.

Compare the three trades.

The Falcons traded the 27th pick in the draft to the 6th pick--21 spots--in the draft to get Julio Jones. They paid an arm and a leg to get him.
The Atlanta Falcons gave up 2011 and 2012 first round picks, a 2011 second round pick and both 2011 and 2012 fourth round picks.
That is two first round picks, a second round pick, and two fourth round picks.

Julio Jones is a high quality receiver, but boy the price was high.

Both, the 49er trade for Reid and the Ram trade for Austin were in the last draft, so we really cannot judge those trades.

The Rams moved up eight spots in the draft (from No. 16 to No. 8 overall) to grab the former West Virginia wide receiver. The Rams gave up a first round pick (#16), a second round pick (#46), a third round pick #78) and a seventh round pick (#222) in exchange for Austin and the Bills' third-round pick -- No. 71.


The 49ers moved 13 spots in the draft (from the 31st pick in the draft to the 18th pick) to get Eric Reed.
To get Reid, the 49er gave up only one third round pick to make the move—the 74th pick in the 2013 draft.

Not sure that a safety compares directly to a wide receiver, but at first glance, the price that we paid seems almost like nothing.

Not sure if already posted becasue i dont have time to read the whole thread, but:

How many superbowls have the falcons, bengals and lions ever won?... crickets...

Having an elite WR is overrated imo, many of the teams who have them dont even do so well. Sure it would be nice to have one, but I would rather have a solid group so our QB dosent have to feel the pressure of getting the ball to the elite guy, he can play his game and all his guys can ball! I feel we have that even without crabs. Sure alot of thease guys are unproven, but all of them scream "about to breakout" I am sure at least one of them will, plus we have boldin who is an older but very good WR!

Originally posted by willtalk:
No you don't recall correctly. Stokes was not drafted to be the #2 opposite Rice. Rice was getting old. Stokes was drafted to replace Rice as the #1 that is why the traded up at a high cost to get him. They had a man crush on the guy. That was a real head scratcher. They thought he was a franchise wr. Ironically this is the same kind of move that the treads author is proposing. In that case it was a major failure. The problem was they compared him ( his lack of athletic measurables) to Jerry Rice. Well Jerry was unique in that he transcended his physical shortcomings though hard work and desire. Plus his game speed was much faster than his combine times and thats not always so for everyone. I think the point the threads author is trying to make is that this front office might not be placing a high enough priority on the WR position. It seems to make sense that a team should to fill important core positions before it over spends on the skill positions. However once those core positions have been filled there is nothing wrong with identifying a special wr and trading up to get him (much like they did this year at safety) especially if you have a strong team and extra picks to use in trade. It would be smart to maximize the strength of you team ( QB) by giving them the tools to become more effective. Because of the cap it is easiest to do this through the draft but that would require trading up.

I think what the poster meant by Balkie being cute was his attempting to identify a hidden gem that other GM's had missed. That's kind of an Al Davis trait that will usually blow up in your face if you are not extremely gifted in that specific area. Rascal instead proposes that the NIner's instead identify a player that is more of a cant miss high reward prospect and utilize higher picks to trade up for them rather than go for a lower risk but more of a low reward reach at # 30. I mean Jenkins was a gamble were he was picked he just had too many red flags. I don't think there were any WR this last draft that were worth trading up to get. But that doesn't mean that that might not happen in the future. If a monster receiver becomes available there is no reason why the Niner's considering their loaded roster and extra draft picks shouldn't trade up to get him. That doesn't mean that just because they can that they should in a draft where the quality of wr's is at the high risk low reward level that the QB's were this draft. They need to be patient and wait for the right player to appear.

Every person has strengths and weaknesses. Just because a coach or GM is good at certain aspects of their job does not mean they are good in all of the aspect of their job. The same applies to recognizing talent. They may have blind spots in certain positions such as wr. So just because they have made excellent picks at many other positions does not mean we necessarily have to trust their evaluatory judgement at every position.

Brilliantly put !! Thanks willtalk !! That is exactly what I was trying to convey, may be I should have written more to explain the rationale of my thought process.

I would just like to add, JJ Stokes might have been a bust, but that is a risk inherent to any draft pick whether it is a high, middle or low round pick only that the cost involved differs. As for JJ Stokes, let's just tell it the way it was, it was just simply a bad pick / mistake on our part in our talent evaluation. It happens, but if you don't bear risk, likewise you will never be able to land a Julio Jones on your roster neither.

Originally posted by buck:
He specifically talks about the Lions going after Calvin Johnson, but I think that you are right.

He talks about Falcons going after Julio Jones and in a response to you he talks about the Rams going after Tavon Austin.




Compare the three trades.

The Falcons traded the 27th pick in the draft to the 6th pick--21 spots--in the draft to get Julio Jones. They paid an arm and a leg to get him.
The Atlanta Falcons gave up 2011 and 2012 first round picks, a 2011 second round pick and both 2011 and 2012 fourth round picks.
That is two first round picks, a second round pick, and two fourth round picks.

Julio Jones is a high quality receiver, but boy the price was high.

Both, the 49er trade for Reid and the Ram trade for Austin were in the last draft, so we really cannot judge those trades.

The Rams moved up eight spots in the draft (from No. 16 to No. 8 overall) to grab the former West Virginia wide receiver. The Rams gave up a first round pick (#16), a second round pick (#46), a third round pick #78) and a seventh round pick (#222) in exchange for Austin and the Bills' third-round pick -- No. 71.


The 49ers moved 13 spots in the draft (from the 31st pick in the draft to the 18th pick) to get Eric Reed.
To get Reid, the 49er gave up only one third round pick to make the move—the 74th pick in the 2013 draft.

Not sure that a safety compares directly to a wide receiver, but at first glance, the price that we paid seems almost like nothing.

Just read what willtalk posted. He explained in detail on my entire rationale and thought process.

I am not going to go into who might have costed a lot more than who and so forth. Cos the basis of my thinking is to go all out for a top talent, needless to say there will be a respective price tag attached to it. At this juncture, this is of course just hypothetical talk, we don't know who that guy might be and where he may lie in the draft, who knows, the guy might even be in the 2nd round.

Julio Jones is expensive, but ultimately it all depends on whether things work out and in this case it definitely did. Since we are at it, let me just explain the examples I used on Detroit and so forth is just to say they have a franchise WR available to their QB and nothing more. I was not referring to the success or the lack of on those teams.

Originally posted by willtalk:

I think what the poster meant by Balkie being cute was his attempting to identify a hidden gem that other GM's had missed. That's kind of an Al Davis trait that will usually blow up in your face if you are not extremely gifted in that specific area.

The Jenkins pick was clearly a surprize, and it may have been a bad pick. After one year, it looks bad, but one year is not enough time to judge any draft pick, much less wide receiver. It is more than a little premature to say that the Jenkins pick has blown up in Baalke's face.

How exactly have you determined that Baalke was being cute or attempting to identify a hidden gem that other GMs had missed?

Baalke has led the team in three drafts. Maybe, I am blind, but I just not see any picks Baalke made that can be considered as credible support for the claim being made.

What picks do you think that Baalke has he made that indicate he is being cute?

Comparing Baalke and Al Davis just seems off the wall.

Besides, Al Davis was not being cute, he tended to draft speed, speed, and more speed.

Originally posted by Rascal:

I am not going to go into who might have costed a lot more than who and so forth. Cos the basis of my thinking is to go all out for a top talent, needless to say there will be a respective price tag attached to it. At this juncture, this is of course just hypothetical talk, we don't know who that guy might be and where he may lie in the draft, who knows, the guy might even be in the 2nd round.

Prior to this draft, there was considerable, well at least some, discussion about moving up in the draft to pick a wide receiver.

On April 21st, a poster stated "tavon austin is a dynamic explosive playmaker. need or not this guy is worth trading up for."

Your response was, "Nah. Tavon Austin is predicted to go as high as 8th. It will cost us the house, the car, the wife, the kids and the dog to be able to move up that high to get him."

I remember that exchange because my reaction to your post was "I'd keep the dog, but all the rest..... "

Austin was predicted to go eighth and he did. The Rams traded up for him.

Your take on the trade seems to have changed, which is not necessarily bad, but it is different.

edit: I have already responded to willtalk posted.

Originally posted by buck:
Prior to this draft, there was considerable, well at least some, discussion about moving up in the draft to pick a wide receiver.

On April 21st, a poster stated "tavon austin is a dynamic explosive playmaker. need or not this guy is worth trading up for."

Your response was, "Nah. Tavon Austin is predicted to go as high as 8th. It will cost us the house, the car, the wife, the kids and the dog to be able to move up that high to get him."

I remember that exchange because my reaction to your post was "I'd keep the dog, but all the rest..... "

Austin was predicted to go eighth and he did. The Rams traded up for him.

Your take on the trade seems to have changed, which is not necessarily bad, but it is different.

edit: I have already responded to willtalk posted.

No, it hasn't changed.

I only used the Rams example earlier on to illustrate on the type of move I was referring to.

I was negative towards that particular poster's suggestion ONLY because I was never keen on Tavon Austin. Who knows, he might work out great with the Rams, but ultimately he was not the type of receiver I was looking for.

Clear ?

Originally posted by Rascal:


No, it hasn't changed.

I only used the Rams example earlier on to illustrate on the type of move I was referring to.

I was negative towards that particular poster's suggestion ONLY because I was never keen on Tavon Austin. Who knows, he might work out great with the Rams, but ultimately he was not the type of receiver I was looking for.

Clear ?

I am a bit slow, so let me go through this.

Before the draft moving up to get Tavon Austin was a bad idea because he was not the type of receiver you were looking for.

After the draft moving up to select Tavon Austin was an example of the type of trade we should make because Austin may work out for the Rams.

Given the price paid for Austin and the fact that he was the #8 pick in the draft, one can logically expect Austin to become a franchise wide receiver. So, if Austin works out, it safe to assume that he has become the Rams franchise wide receiver.

If Austin is skillful enough to work out for the Rams, I cannot think of any logical reason to assume that Austin would not be skillful enough to work out for the 49ers.

Your opinion of Austin has not changed.

You still think that moving up to take Austin who has the potential to be a franchise wide receiver would have been a mistake because Austin still is not the type of wide receiver you are looking for.

No. This is not clear to me.

Cold Hard Football Facts says tread cautiously when going after those top WRs: Shiny Hood Ornament Man Law

ONE – Wide receivers, for all their eye-catching flash and dash, are little more than shiny ornaments on the hood of an NFL offense. Oh, sure, they're nice to have. But they don't necessarily make your offense any better – and they rarely if ever make your team any better.

TWO – You should add a flashy wide receiver only when all the other pieces of a great team are in place: a great driver (the quarterback), some sporty tires that provide plenty of traction (the offensive line and ground game), a powerful motor (the defense) and a great transmission (special teams) that allows you to change gears quickly and effectively.

THREE – Even the greatest receivers of all time can make a big impact only when all those pieces are in place, and even then the impact is largely overstated. Even the great Jerry Rice, for example, touched the ball just four to five times per game. So the impact of even the greatest at the position is minimal compared with the impact of a certain position that touches the ball on every offensive snap. And remember, Rice did not make the 49ers a great team. He was drafted by the 18-1 defending Super Bowl champ 49ers in 1985.

Granted, we have those other pieces (great QB, great OL and running game). Still, worth a thought given this discussion.

Originally posted by buck:
I am a bit slow, so let me go through this.

Before the draft moving up to get Tavon Austin was a bad idea because he was not the type of receiver you were looking for.

After the draft moving up to select Tavon Austin was an example of the type of trade we should make because Austin may work out for the Rams.

Given the price paid for Austin and the fact that he was the #8 pick in the draft, one can logically expect Austin to become a franchise wide receiver. So, if Austin works out, it safe to assume that he has become the Rams franchise wide receiver.

If Austin is skillful enough to work out for the Rams, I cannot think of any logical reason to assume that Austin would not be skillful enough to work out for the 49ers.

Your opinion of Austin has not changed.

You still think that moving up to take Austin who has the potential to be a franchise wide receiver would have been a mistake because Austin still is not the type of wide receiver you are looking for.

No. This is not clear to me.

OK, you are indeed a bit slow. Let me help you out here :

1. I used the Rams example just to illustrate if you want a player bad, that is what you do as in trading up big time to get him and in this case it happens to be Tavon Austin. Is similar to what we did in order to make sure we landed Eric Reid
2. Whether Tavon Austin works out with the Rams is irrelevant to me cos he was not the type of receiver that I was looking for. I have no idea how the Rams are going to use him. To me, he is a slot receiver and a KR/PR guy, that is just my opinion. Plus, I haven't the faintest idea whether he will become the Rams' franchise WR.
3. Since you have been following my posts so closely, you should know full well by now the type of receiver I am after. Weren't we just talking about that earlier ? I want a tall and ideally physical receiver, 6'3" + who can burn and take the top off DBs on deep balls and red zone plays. I am not even that keen on 5'11", 6' type guys nevermind 5'8" and 174 lbs.
4. What hasn't changed, is my opinion on the concept of moving up big time to make sure we secure a targetted top WR (and not literally Tavon Austin cos he is not my guy)

That should be crystal clear by now and don't tell me otherwise or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Originally posted by Rascal:
OK, you are indeed a bit slow. Let me help you out here :

1. I used the Rams example just to illustrate if you want a player bad, that is what you do as in trading up big time to get him and in this case it happens to be Tavon Austin. Is similar to what we did in order to make sure we landed Eric Reid
2. Whether Tavon Austin works out with the Rams is irrelevant to me cos he was not the type of receiver that I was looking for. I have no idea how the Rams are going to use him. To me, he is a slot receiver and a KR/PR guy, that is just my opinion. Plus, I haven't the faintest idea whether he will become the Rams' franchise WR.
3. Since you have been following my posts so closely, you should know full well by now the type of receiver I am after. Weren't we just talking about that earlier ? I want a tall and ideally physical receiver, 6'3" + who can burn and take the top off DBs on deep balls and red zone plays. I am not even that keen on 5'11", 6' type guys nevermind 5'8" and 174 lbs.
4. What hasn't changed, is my opinion on the concept of moving up big time to make sure we secure a targetted top WR (and not literally Tavon Austin cos he is not my guy)

That should be crystal clear by now and don't tell me otherwise or you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

That seems clear. Thanks for the help.

You want us to trade up for the type of receiver you want--and only for the type of receiver you want.

Would you two cut it out.

Originally posted by mayo49:
Would you two cut it out.

I think we just did.