There are 155 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Thoughts on why Niners chose to make so many draft picks

Walsh was more brutal in moving on that Baalke is. Gore would be gone with Walsh.

I think Lynch could get some kind of ankle injury or a shoulder or a muscle pull and goes on IR ... possible with Acker too if he can't show enough ST skills to make Ventrone/Osgood not needed.
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,962
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
Yet at our worst period ever, Giedi, 2-14 and 4-12 we were overcap IIRC. Not sure exactly Trent's hire date, but I know he was here for some of that b.s. So he saw it and lousy talent, and learned from others mistakes. Never do I remember back with McC that we had just stolen picks from teams in trades. Of course, it is pretty hard to make trades when you don't have much in your cupboard. And that is where we find ourselves now, even tho we were in 3 consecutive NFCC games. We are loaded talentwise, are definitely going to be a better team than last yr when cutdowns come, and somehow have fixed the holes we had. Still the Anquan robbery last yr and the Stevie robbery this one are hard to believe...and right where we needed help the most...other than CB, where trent first brings in Ward, sure to start at nickel and greatly improve us but could gradually start at FS also. Then 3 mid/late rd CBs all of whom could stick...certainly two could. His liberal use of redshirts via injury status, PS, or whatever he chooses to do has been a bit overwhelming, allowing lattimore et al a yr to heal, learn and improve. If we played with 90, I would bet we would hands down have the best team.

As noted before, I dread cutdowns because we are going to cut starters for other teams. Trent's ability to trade next yr draft picks for those guys before being traded is a thing of beauty. And he does the reverse too, eg, Anquan and Stevie. You want to see the builder of a franchise, especially in depth, look no further than trent.

I think a big part of cap problems is bad talent evaluation. Erickson and Donahue were extremely bad. I.e teams get into cap problems when they overpay for average talent. Trent Praag and Harbaugh are pretty good, so capwise we should be good for a while. If a team wins the super bowl, it's almost a given that they are under paying a good portion of their players. In the reverse, getting free agents, very likely you are paying market value or above because if it's a popular player and you are trying to outbid bottom feeders, these bottom feeding teams tend to inflate a players market value beyond his real value. They are bottom feeders for a reason.

Our teams edge is the coaching and the ability to take undervalued Players and coach them up. Once we start losing some of our coaches, my worry is that - that edge will diminish. I think because of this - a trade down will benefit more a team with a strong coaching staff vs a team with a weak coaching staff.
I agree...and speaking of bottom feeders inflating players market value, remember the disastrous signing of Nate the Great, who never let a pass be completed(shut down corner)? Well that was on the E. coast. When he came here, he alone was playing defense and virtually everyone around him was...well, let's just say well below average. That signing killed us cap wise, and never did squat to improve a team that needed to be built from the lines out. Now if we would have drafted/traded for 3 Nates, like SEA did for their 3 CBs, that would have been another matter. But breaking the bank to sign one guy? Not a great idea long term. For a quick SB run we have done that twice I think both on D and both pass rushers. Again, that was short run and it worked. Nate was long haul, and it backfired. Badly.
[ Edited by pasodoc9er on May 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM ]
My guess is that they are happy picking bc if they didnt I see them trading down or for another pick next year.
Originally posted by Scoots:
Walsh was more brutal in moving on that Baalke is. Gore would be gone with Walsh.

I think Lynch could get some kind of ankle injury or a shoulder or a muscle pull and goes on IR ... possible with Acker too if he can't show enough ST skills to make Ventrone/Osgood not needed.

No way. Gore was clearly our best RB last year. This year, however, I hope the best man wins the job...because I do agree that moving forward it might not be Gore anymore...
Originally posted by Wisconsin49erfan:
Originally posted by Scoots:
Walsh was more brutal in moving on that Baalke is. Gore would be gone with Walsh.

I think Lynch could get some kind of ankle injury or a shoulder or a muscle pull and goes on IR ... possible with Acker too if he can't show enough ST skills to make Ventrone/Osgood not needed.

No way. Gore was clearly our best RB last year. This year, however, I hope the best man wins the job...because I do agree that moving forward it might not be Gore anymore...

Yes way. Walsh would trade someone early while they still had good value rather than waiting til it was too late in their career.
[ Edited by kronik on Jun 15, 2014 at 9:33 PM ]
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,962
Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
I agree...and speaking of bottom feeders inflating players market value, remember the disastrous signing of Nate the Great, who never let a pass be completed(shut down corner)? Well that was on the E. coast. When he came here, he alone was playing defense and virtually everyone around him was...well, let's just say well below average. That signing killed us cap wise, and never did squat to improve a team that needed to be built from the lines out. Now if we would have drafted/traded for 3 Nates, like SEA did for their 3 CBs, that would have been another matter. But breaking the bank to sign one guy? Not a great idea long term. For a quick SB run we have done that twice I think both on D and both pass rushers. Again, that was short run and it worked. Nate was long haul, and it backfired. Badly.

Yeah those were horrible days. At that point this organization was so out of whack - I spent a lot of time in the non-football section of the board.

Also one other thought as to why so many picks, I remember an article listing one of eddie D's concern about the team getting too old around Colin. Well having 11+ picks should go a long way to making the team younger if these draft picks pan out.
Originally posted by Wisconsin49erfan:
Originally posted by Scoots:
Walsh was more brutal in moving on that Baalke is. Gore would be gone with Walsh.

I think Lynch could get some kind of ankle injury or a shoulder or a muscle pull and goes on IR ... possible with Acker too if he can't show enough ST skills to make Ventrone/Osgood not needed.

No way. Gore was clearly our best RB last year. This year, however, I hope the best man wins the job...because I do agree that moving forward it might not be Gore anymore...

Roger Craig.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,470
1. made all the trades deemed feasible
2. had the picks, nothing gained by not using them
3. add talent
4. increase competition
5. get younger
6. reduce cap cost

Originally posted by buck:
1. made all the trades deemed feasible
2. had the picks, nothing gained by not using them
3. add talent
4. increase competition
5. get younger
6. reduce cap cost


I think part of the problem is Baalke is getting quite a reputation for fleecing his trading partners. Other GM's are getting tired of being portrayed as being taken to the cleaners.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Just from an entertainment perspective, has there been a more fun/active GM to watch around draft time? Moving up, moving down, acquiring the most picks each year, trading current players for more, acquiring proven vets for free, the value, intrigue, pwning owners on value trades (in the draft and outside), etc. What blows my mind is with his reputation, how is he STILL able to make any moves at all anymore. If I was a GM, and I saw on caller I.D. "Trent Baalke" I'd block that caller every time!


This

Trent is special. He isn't really ripping anyone off. These guys could all say no.

Baalke definitely does his homework.
  • Giedi
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,962
Originally posted by Bluesbro:
Originally posted by buck:
1. made all the trades deemed feasible
2. had the picks, nothing gained by not using them
3. add talent
4. increase competition
5. get younger
6. reduce cap cost


I think part of the problem is Baalke is getting quite a reputation for fleecing his trading partners. Other GM's are getting tired of being portrayed as being taken to the cleaners.

Yeah, it sure looks that way. I was really hoping we could move up. I hope we have a situation where we are drafting 32'nd next year. I'd love to see Baalke just trade down like the '86 draft and get more draft picks, because it seems trading up is a lot tougher than trading down. Even when you are armed with 11+ draft picks and something like 7 picks in the first 4 rounds, they couldn't trade up.

I think one reason is that the bottom feeding teams just have too much draft capital. I think if you dangle a 1st round, pick 32 to a bottom feeder that has 2nd round, pick 10 - I bet he'll take that trade and give us a 5th or more. Point being is not to go against the flow but with it.

With our coaching staff, 3rd rounders are like first rounders. 7th rounders are like 4th rounders. So if that's the case, Baalke should be trading down as often as he can.
[ Edited by Giedi on Jun 29, 2014 at 7:11 AM ]
Originally posted by RDB4216:
It should also be considered, that I don't think anyone expected Beckham to go at #12. It's very possible that we were looking at trade partners to move up, but weren't looking higher than we thought we needed to. Instead of panicking and then moving up to draft the 4th highest rated receiver, we stood pat and got the slot CB we needed, #1 rated HB, #1 rated C - and Stevie Johnson!

So we improved our overall quality of depth, but getting Stevie Johnson for basically free (although "after the fact") is what really made this work.

This! I never wanted to trade up for Beckham in the first place though.
We have a lot of FAs upcoming so it made sense to get as much depth as possible. I'm sure we explored opportunities for some trade ups, but the price was just too steep. One of the reasons we are so good is our depth. If a big time player goes down, someone on the bench steps right in and performs adequately. There are going to be injuries every year unfortunately and you just hope you have enough depth to overcome it. Obviously if Kaepernick goes down it may be a little tougher, but pretty much every other position we have great depth.
Originally posted by buck:
1. made all the trades deemed feasible
2. had the picks, nothing gained by not using them
3. add talent
4. increase competition
5. get younger
6. reduce cap cost


this. we loaded the team with talent, got younger players at key positions and the recent trend of red shirting injured prospects is genius. we get to stash even more talent on the roster and take players that wouldve gone much higher had they not been injured. cant afford to pay everyone top dollar so we draft replacements for our stars before they are gone if we cant retain them