There are 162 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What Is Baalke's Preoccupation With 7th Round Draft Choices?

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Well, there's your answer Brodie. Once the F.O. starts talking up a guy, you pretty much know he is gone.

Apparently.

Also, blocking punts appears to get you a one way ticket out of town.

Could we be witnessing an internal power struggle between Fangio and Roman that Fangio is losing?

I think we're setting ourselves up for deja vu all over again. For #4 TE?
Originally posted by SD49ers:
The scouting debt is epic btw. How do we keep bringing in such great lower round talent?

Could have as much or more to do with remarkable coaches developing these kids.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 9,629
Look fools, it has been pretty obvious from the beginning of his tenure as GM, Baalke has been out of his depth.

Only homers would dare dispute the fact that if Baalke makes a decision, that decision is wrong.


Give me a mother ducking break.
Think this was brought up but right now our picks look like:

1, 2, 2/3 KC, 3 TEN, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 CAR, 7 INDY, 7 NO

So 1, 2, 2/3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7

Plus it seems likely we will at worst get a 3rd rounder for Goldson. Who knows if we get anything for RJF, Sopoaga, Walker, Ginn, etc since we signed a lot of guys ourselves. We'll see but I'd be happy with a 3rd, anything else is gravy.

I should have just hit the 7 key 777777777777777777777. I said this in another thread but Baalke's goal is to one day have all 254 picks in a draft so he can laugh at the other teams as they sit in their war rooms on draft day watching Step Brothers on DVD. Don't ask me how we gets every comp pick but he'll find a way. Seriously though it's going to be awesome watching him work the board next year. Can't wait.
  • Amir
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,766
we draft well in odd years but not in even years. so baalke is gathering as many picks to trade to get clowney.
[ Edited by Amir on Sep 2, 2013 at 6:10 PM ]
Originally posted by Amir:
we draft well in odd years but not in even years. so baalke is gathering as many picks to trade to get clowney.


I know the second part was a joke....

...but the 2010 draft looks pretty damn good.
Originally posted by buck:
Look fools, it has been pretty obvious from the beginning of his tenure as GM, Baalke has been out of his depth.

Only homers would dare dispute the fact that if Baalke makes a decision, that decision is wrong.


Give me a mother ducking break.

The "decision" we're talking about is defensive depth, foo' !
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Amir:
we draft well in odd years but not in even years. so baalke is gathering as many picks to trade to get clowney.


I know the second part was a joke....

...but the 2010 draft looks pretty damn good.

lol 3 probowlers in one draft.
Originally posted by Stealthduner:
one of the better players they've had the last few years was Delanie walker and he was a 6th round "project"

Delanie Walker most certainly was NOT "one of the better players they've had the last few years." He was the most overrated player on the team by the fans. He did a good job blocking by design, but its highly unlikely somebody else won't be able to do the same. As a receiving threat, people have nicknamed him Droptimus Prime. Enough said.

The guy wasn't BAD, but nowhere near as good as some fans made it seem.
[ Edited by Empire49 on Sep 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM ]
[ Edited by billbird2111 on Sep 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM ]
I posted this in the cam Johnson thread:

There is another angle to this trade. The salary cap, for next year. what I mean is that Cam would be a third year vet next year, hence a higher cap # than next years 7th round pick. For a player like Cam, a back up, not expected to see the field much this year, this factors in. Cam is not in the long term plan as a starter, and with the starters we need to extend and resign next year, its highly unlikely the 9ers would keep him as a higher priced back up. Sadly a more polished Cam would be cut to save $. Because in the age of starters making big bucks, back ups have to be paid league minimums. Read more at http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl/174487-cam-johnson-being-traded-colts/page23/#ebfrJisuvdbB0zZ8.99

The point of seventh rounders is salary cap space. You cant have 4th stringers making more then league minimums!
[ Edited by Kezar1965 on Sep 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM ]
  • bret
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,135
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by jreff22:
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
We are using the picks in 2014 for draft day positioning and or to pick up a developmental prospect like BJ Daniels

That makes sense but taking BJ for example. Why spend the time developing him to dump him for another 7th for instance? If we get better value I'm all for it, if its a lateral move

We traded Daniels for another 7th?

If that is the case, Baalke must figure we can a number of seventh round picks for a first round pick.

Our ifs may or may not be connected to reality.

I do know that my ifs are almost never have any thing to do with the real world.

@jeff22: If we keep a bunch of rookies, we pay them 500k/year and if we cut them they're done. But after a few years (I think it's 4) they become "vested veterans". Now they cost close to a million $ a year, and if you cut them their salary is guaranteed.

This is important because there is a hard salary cap and very soon we're going to be paying Kap $20 million and Aldon $10 million. If the bottom 20 on your roster are filled in with guys making $1 million guaranteed instead of $500k not guaranteed, that adds $10 million. Brutal as it sounds, it's the stars fans pay to come see, and they're the ones who are going to get paid. This team is trying to find a way to keep the roster strong and still keep those superstars the fan-base will pay to see. And frankly, they're going about it the only you can go about it, if you want to be successful!

Now after a couple of years, the coaching staff has to determine the future of a player: is he going to develop into one of those guys people are going to pay to see? Then you try to extend them (like they did with Willis, Bowman, Brooks, V Davis, Staley and A Davis) early and at the most reasonable price possible. But if they're not showing the potential to get to that level, you let them go in a way that allows you to accumulate more bodies, some of whom will ultimately work, but most of whom will end up just like the guys you're letting go, only cheaper. And that's the formula.

That's what happened with Goldson: he was a good safety, but he'd reached the point where he could get paid like a "great" safety on the open market, and so the Niners let him go. They've drafted a guy they're confident will at least be a "good" safety, just like Goldson, and may end up being a great one.

If they don't constantly renew the roster (to the consternation of the fans) the roster will ultimately decline.
Originally posted by SFrush:
We couldn't release Stupar for him?

Having a fifth OLB who can rush the passer is more valuable than a fifth ILB imo.

Cam must have been poor in practice, because based on game 4 he was worth way more than a 7th
The Chargers tackle he was going against was a long time starter in Max Starks
Originally posted by maxsmart:
Originally posted by SFrush:
We couldn't release Stupar for him?

Having a fifth OLB who can rush the passer is more valuable than a fifth ILB imo.

Cam must have been poor in practice, because based on game 4 he was worth way more than a 7th
The Chargers tackle he was going against was a long time starter in Max Starks

I'm guessing it has more to do with special teams value. When you are the worst kick coverage in the league and it has a role in costing you a Super Bowl, extra roster spots and speciality players must be considered.
Originally posted by bret:
@jeff22: If we keep a bunch of rookies, we pay them 500k/year and if we cut them they're done. But after a few years (I think it's 4) they become "vested veterans". Now they cost close to a million $ a year, and if you cut them their salary is guaranteed.

I get the financial end and a point I made in another thread was Cam should be cheaper. He is younger, has higher upside (in comparison to Skuta), and is a cheap alternative. 3/14/2013: Signed a two-year, $3 million contract. The deal included a $300,000 signing bonus. Skuta is eligible for annual $50,000 workout bonuses in both seasons. 2013: $1 million (+ $150,000 roster bonus), 2014: $1.3 million, 2015: Free Agent.

To me Cam is the better player and would cost less now. 12/21/2012: Signed a two-year, $795,000 contract. 2013: $405,000, 2014: Exclusive Rights Free Agent.