a case for taking dez bryant if available

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Overkill:
The Detroit Lions failed to find success because they kept missing with their virtually all their draft picks. The fact they continually missed on WR's makes no difference. Substitute any position for WR in that scenario and you get the same result.

Pass on Bryant because you feel you don't need him, because you don't like him as a prospect, or because keeping both Bryant & Crabs on the same roster LT could be difficult. Not because you took a WR last year.

And if you feel we don't need him, you must be basing that on the play of Morgan, Jones, or Hill - because those are the guys he'd replace. Or on the emergence of VD - because he's a large part of the passing attack now. Crabtree's play shouldn't really be a factor, unless your projecting out 4-5 years (when it comes time to resign these guys).

It all goes in together tho. I think it doesn't need to be said that if you draft a bust it doesn't matter what position you draft a bust in...but if you're going to get a good player - and that's what you're hoping to do when you select a first round pick. You should take a position that will help your team in the biggest way.

A receiver is not that position.

The fact that we have decent play from Davis, Morgan, and the other guys just adds to it. So does the fact that Bryant is similar type of receiver to all of those guys.

I'm not arguing that WR is a big need. In fact, I'd say its not even in our top 8 needs.

I'm just pointing out that saying we shouldn't draft a WR in the first round two years in a row simply because Detroit did, is a bit ridiculous. If you want to base your argument on need, than do so - leave Detroit out of it.

Originally posted by Overkill:
Pass on Bryant because you feel you don't need him, because you don't like him as a prospect, or because keeping both Bryant & Crabs on the same roster LT could be difficult. Not because you took a WR last year.

Why not? Detroit is one of the few examples out there of doing this.

Does everyone forget that at the time those same receivers were top prospects and blue chipers? I think every single guy they drafted maybe except for Mike Williams was rated higher than Dez Bryant.

Everyone wants to have a powerful offense but there are plenty of teams out there with very good passing offenses who do not draft receiver that high.

Someone mentioned the Saints? Their #1 receiver is a 7th rounder. And only Meachem is a first rounder who was drafted later in the first round.

Let's give our guys time to develop. WR isn't exactly a position that blows up real quick in most cases. Morgan will be entering his 3rd year next season. For most guys that's the big breakout year for receivers.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jreff22:


Let me clarify something that may not be clear in why I'm saying this. Bryant would be a possibility in my eyes IF we land either a FA OT or OG or both. IF we could fill both LOG and ROT in FA (high caliber players) then I would have no qualms with Bryant. If we get neither then yes OT becomes a bigger priority then WR in the first round.

As far as teams using main WR's as return guys...
Welker
Harvin
Ginn
Cribs
Hester
Royal

.......it does happen

None of those guys is the #1 receiver for the team and only one of those guys was drafted in the first round(later first round)

AND...each of those guys is a slot receiver type.

Harvin is the #2 but has scored more TD's then any of their other WR's and eventually will be the #1
Ginn has been a semi bust but he was drafted to be a #1
Cribs is a #1
Hester is a #1

Who says Bryant would be our #1 WR anyways?

Wait I count 2 1st rd picks. And a top 10 pick there. Also welled I will consider a top wr. He is huge for that offense.


Then the cards had a 1st rd pick on their team when they drafted Fitzgerald and an all pro boldin.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jreff22:


Let me clarify something that may not be clear in why I'm saying this. Bryant would be a possibility in my eyes IF we land either a FA OT or OG or both. IF we could fill both LOG and ROT in FA (high caliber players) then I would have no qualms with Bryant. If we get neither then yes OT becomes a bigger priority then WR in the first round.

As far as teams using main WR's as return guys...
Welker
Harvin
Ginn
Cribs
Hester
Royal

.......it does happen

None of those guys is the #1 receiver for the team and only one of those guys was drafted in the first round(later first round)

AND...each of those guys is a slot receiver type.

Originally posted by genus49:
Why not? Detroit is one of the few examples out there of doing this.

Because, as I've already explained, Detroit failed because they missed on those picks, not because they drafted WR's with those picks.

Arguing that we shouldn't do something because "Detroit did" or "Indianopolis didn't" is weak. Each team and each situation is different. There is no blue print out there for building a winning franchise because so much depends on whether your picks pan out or not.

NO & AZ didn't have to spend two 1's on WR's because they found great players outside the first round BEFORE they selected another WR in the first round. To argue that AZ would have passed Fitz if they had selected Boldin in the top ten (instead of in the 2nd) would be silly. The round Boldin was selected in has no bearing on AZ's thought process when deciding whether or not to select Fitzgerald.

You have to examine your own needs/situation and draft accordingly. Passing on someone (or reaching for someone else) based on what other teams have or haven't done in the past makes absolutely no sense.

As for the rest of your post, I tend to agree with you. A good OT, pass rusher, S, etc. would all likely have a bigger impact than another WR imo.

Ugh...it's kind of pointless arguing in a thread where everyone is fine with the idea of drafting Bryant.

I'm curious how many people have actually seen him play? I look at the guy and don't see that adding him would make our team that much more explosive. If we're using a top 10 pick on a player he sure as sh*t better make a huge impact.

You guys are getting too nitpicky. I looked right past Ginn because the guy is a giant turd. I would hope everyone can agree we don't want whoever we draft to turn out like him.

The fact is if you don't need a starter at that position you better make sure you're getting a ton of value to go with BPA at a position like wide receiver - this guy better be a can't miss prospect like Calvin Johnson. That isn't the case with Dez Bryant. If we didn't grab Crabtree last year I'd be on board but we don't need the same type of guy even if he has legit talent.

WR is a position that tends to fall further in the draft. Look around the league and you'll see the bulk of the major receivers aren't top 10 picks. Sure there are sure studs like Johnson and Johnson and Fitz...but lots of guys get drafted later in the draft and do just as well.

Hell if we trade down and then grab him I'd be ok with it...but not with a top 10 pick.

Originally posted by genus49:
Ugh...it's kind of pointless arguing in a thread where everyone is fine with the idea of drafting Bryant.

I'm curious how many people have actually seen him play? I look at the guy and don't see that adding him would make our team that much more explosive. If we're using a top 10 pick on a player he sure as sh*t better make a huge impact.

You guys are getting too nitpicky. I looked right past Ginn because the guy is a giant turd. I would hope everyone can agree we don't want whoever we draft to turn out like him.

The fact is if you don't need a starter at that position you better make sure you're getting a ton of value to go with BPA at a position like wide receiver - this guy better be a can't miss prospect like Calvin Johnson. That isn't the case with Dez Bryant. If we didn't grab Crabtree last year I'd be on board but we don't need the same type of guy even if he has legit talent.

WR is a position that tends to fall further in the draft. Look around the league and you'll see the bulk of the major receivers aren't top 10 picks. Sure there are sure studs like Johnson and Johnson and Fitz...but lots of guys get drafted later in the draft and do just as well.

Hell if we trade down and then grab him I'd be ok with it...but not with a top 10 pick.

That argument sounds eerily similar.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jreff22:


Let me clarify something that may not be clear in why I'm saying this. Bryant would be a possibility in my eyes IF we land either a FA OT or OG or both. IF we could fill both LOG and ROT in FA (high caliber players) then I would have no qualms with Bryant. If we get neither then yes OT becomes a bigger priority then WR in the first round.

As far as teams using main WR's as return guys...
Welker
Harvin
Ginn
Cribs
Hester
Royal

.......it does happen

None of those guys is the #1 receiver for the team and only one of those guys was drafted in the first round(later first round)

AND...each of those guys is a slot receiver type.

Harvin is the #2 but has scored more TD's then any of their other WR's and eventually will be the #1
Ginn has been a semi bust but he was drafted to be a #1
Cribs is a #1
Hester is a #1

Who says Bryant would be our #1 WR anyways?

sorry, but cribs and hester arent #1's

The 49ers have critical need areas that are preventing the team from challenging for the playoffs. But I look at the talent level and it's not like the team is starting over, there is some real talent here. Of course, this hinges on whether or not Alex is the guy.

With 2 1st round picks, the team has the luxury of taking the BPA with one pick, while still addressing a need with the other. Here's my problem with a lot of the discussion here. Really, I think a majority of you guys are like Skip Bayless who argue just to argue, but every single year there is one player the 49ers MUST have at all costs. Last year it was Crabtree. The year before there were a lot of McKelvin/Rodgers-Cromartie fans. In '07 to start the year Calvin Johnson, the year before Bush/Mario Williams, it goes on and on.

What is the one player out there if there is a guy out there that can take the 49ers from a 7-9 team to a playoff team? Another WR, who will get little playing time behind the other guys? Spiller? Will that help against an explosive offense like Philly, New Orleans, or Arizona in the playoffs? Fans get caught up in the flashy players and while the league is now dominated offensively more than ever people lose sight of the meat and potatoes/foundation that wins games in January.

It doesn't matter how talented the skill guys are if you lack difference-makers at the important positions (QB, OL, DL, CB/S) you're not going to win.

Quote:


He [Eric Berry or CJ Spiller] is just one guy. I hate this hyperbole. You guys always make it seem like one player is the end all be all. It doesn't work that way. It takes more than one player to turn around the fortunes of a team (franchise QB notwithstanding).

I actually agree with BPA in the 1st round. Almost always.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by gilwankel:

Originally posted by genus49:

And what am I looking at? A team that hasn't won a superbowl and likely never will.

Receivers don't win you championships. It's lunacy to draft another top 10 receiver when we have so many other holes which are much more pressing. Josh Morgan is a very capable #2 guy and we can draft a quick slot guy later in the draft.

Larry Fitzgerald was also a MUCH better and more safe prospect than Bryant is and had a connection with Dennis Green.

And Dez Bryant is a speedster? Huh? Compared to my grandmother maybe. That tells me all I need to know about your opinion.

The Cards were one play away from winning it last year and Boldin was not a first rounder much less a top 10 pick.

...my point exactly.

I agree with you that we shouldn't draft dez bryant in the first round but saying that the cards likely will never win a super bowl doesn't make any sense for one and it has nothing to do with your argument because again boldin was not a first rounder.

Originally posted by bigfan:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jreff22:


Let me clarify something that may not be clear in why I'm saying this. Bryant would be a possibility in my eyes IF we land either a FA OT or OG or both. IF we could fill both LOG and ROT in FA (high caliber players) then I would have no qualms with Bryant. If we get neither then yes OT becomes a bigger priority then WR in the first round.

As far as teams using main WR's as return guys...
Welker
Harvin
Ginn
Cribs
Hester
Royal

.......it does happen

None of those guys is the #1 receiver for the team and only one of those guys was drafted in the first round(later first round)

AND...each of those guys is a slot receiver type.

Harvin is the #2 but has scored more TD's then any of their other WR's and eventually will be the #1
Ginn has been a semi bust but he was drafted to be a #1
Cribs is a #1
Hester is a #1

Who says Bryant would be our #1 WR anyways?

sorry, but cribs and hester arent #1's

Go look at Cle and Chi depth charts.

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by bigfan:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jreff22:


Let me clarify something that may not be clear in why I'm saying this. Bryant would be a possibility in my eyes IF we land either a FA OT or OG or both. IF we could fill both LOG and ROT in FA (high caliber players) then I would have no qualms with Bryant. If we get neither then yes OT becomes a bigger priority then WR in the first round.

As far as teams using main WR's as return guys...
Welker
Harvin
Ginn
Cribs
Hester
Royal

.......it does happen

None of those guys is the #1 receiver for the team and only one of those guys was drafted in the first round(later first round)

AND...each of those guys is a slot receiver type.

Harvin is the #2 but has scored more TD's then any of their other WR's and eventually will be the #1
Ginn has been a semi bust but he was drafted to be a #1
Cribs is a #1
Hester is a #1

Who says Bryant would be our #1 WR anyways?

sorry, but cribs and hester arent #1's

Go look at Cle and Chi depth charts.

my mistake.. on ANY other team they arent #1's

Originally posted by bigfan:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by bigfan:

Originally posted by jreff22:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jreff22:


Let me clarify something that may not be clear in why I'm saying this. Bryant would be a possibility in my eyes IF we land either a FA OT or OG or both. IF we could fill both LOG and ROT in FA (high caliber players) then I would have no qualms with Bryant. If we get neither then yes OT becomes a bigger priority then WR in the first round.

As far as teams using main WR's as return guys...
Welker
Harvin
Ginn
Cribs
Hester
Royal

.......it does happen

None of those guys is the #1 receiver for the team and only one of those guys was drafted in the first round(later first round)

AND...each of those guys is a slot receiver type.

Harvin is the #2 but has scored more TD's then any of their other WR's and eventually will be the #1
Ginn has been a semi bust but he was drafted to be a #1
Cribs is a #1
Hester is a #1

Who says Bryant would be our #1 WR anyways?

sorry, but cribs and hester arent #1's

Go look at Cle and Chi depth charts.

my mistake.. on ANY other team they arent #1's

I wouldn't say that....but I know what you're getting at.

Originally posted by hofer36:
1. he is one of the best players in draft

2. if he has a crabtree like slide then he would be great value

3. while granted niners could use a playmaking safety, a pass rusher and olineman even more, if the players at that position are not as good as bryant, take the BPA

4. bryant with crabtree and davis could be a force similar to what pats have in moss & welker and what cards have in fitz, boldin & breaston

If we sign a RT in FA, yes!

Originally posted by genus49:
Ugh...it's kind of pointless arguing in a thread where everyone is fine with the idea of drafting Bryant.

I'm curious how many people have actually seen him play? I look at the guy and don't see that adding him would make our team that much more explosive. If we're using a top 10 pick on a player he sure as sh*t better make a huge impact.

You guys are getting too nitpicky. I looked right past Ginn because the guy is a giant turd. I would hope everyone can agree we don't want whoever we draft to turn out like him.

The fact is if you don't need a starter at that position you better make sure you're getting a ton of value to go with BPA at a position like wide receiver - this guy better be a can't miss prospect like Calvin Johnson. That isn't the case with Dez Bryant. If we didn't grab Crabtree last year I'd be on board but we don't need the same type of guy even if he has legit talent.

WR is a position that tends to fall further in the draft. Look around the league and you'll see the bulk of the major receivers aren't top 10 picks. Sure there are sure studs like Johnson and Johnson and Fitz...but lots of guys get drafted later in the draft and do just as well.

Hell if we trade down and then grab him I'd be ok with it...but not with a top 10 pick.

So there's "making the case" for taking Bryant with one of the two 1st rounders, then there's the reality of the situation. I can definitely see the logic in taking a playmaker like Bryant, because he's that good and you can really never have enough playmakers on offense.

However, I see no scenario where this team takes a WR (even if it's a BPA scenario) with one of those two 1st rounders. The chances are slim-to-none, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.