Would You Guys Be Happy With #13 Haden #17 Thomas?

No OT in the first round = draft fail

The whole world knows what our biggest need is and draft experts agree that the quality at the position drops of considerably after the first round - hell some even think that we'll miss out on the best tackles cuz we're not in the top 10 but I'd still rather get a second tier tackle with #13 or #17 than wait for the scraps in round 2.

Originally posted by joey82:

Who says Charles Brown at 17 isn't good value or that Earl Thomas is? It is just a matter of opinion. You say that we could address RT and OLB in the 2nd and 3rd and I say there will be fine DBs in the 2nd and 3rd for us to choose from. To think that the only value at our picks is at DB is a little short sighted. Do you guys honestly think it is reallistic for us and that our front office would draft two DBs in the first?

As for your list of players Ford is tiny and been arrested McCluster will almost certanly be gone before our 2nd and Gilyard likely gone too. The reason to go with a DB is that it kills two birds with one pick. We can get a nickle/dime CB and a returner. Which is more valuable to our roster slots then someone who wouldn't be very likley to see the field if they were a RB or WR.

If we went two DBs we are likely looking at yet another season where we have no pass protection, Gore isn't as effective as he could be, sparadic pass rushing and another year of missing the playoffs.

Ok first of all you're obvoiusly not reading my posts. I'm not saying those two would be the best value. The question would be happy and my answer was - happy NO. Ok with it...YES!

I don't want to spend both firsts on DBs as much as you however I'm not going to flame out and say how this is crazy and insane because when it comes down to it we're getting two pretty damn good players. In a league that's going very pass happy it's not a terrible thing to have an excellent secondary with good depth.

Now what tells me Charles Brown is bad value at #17? The same thing that you keep harping on which is we need a RT. Charles Brown is no RT. He's an excellent pass blocker but he's weak in the running game and is too small. He's much better playing LT - problem is he's not much better than Staley if at all. And personally I don't feel like moving Staley unless there's someone MUCH better than him to take his place.

I think i`d rather have Kyle Wilson at 17. He has return skills which makes him more valuable to our team from day one.

earl thomas, yes, but i'd rather have kyle wilson than haden. just don't think haden will be any different than clements, pretty much see them as the same player.

Originally posted by scopur49er:
No OT in the first round = draft fail

The whole world knows what our biggest need is and draft experts agree that the quality at the position drops of considerably after the first round - hell some even think that we'll miss out on the best tackles cuz we're not in the top 10 but I'd still rather get a second tier tackle with #13 or #17 than wait for the scraps in round 2.

That's ridiculous. No OT in the first round = upsetting. Hardly a draft fail.

We needed OT in the first round last year too...was that a fail?

Worst thing this team can do is say something so ignorant. What happens if Okung, Williams, Bulaga, Davis and even Campbell are all gone by the time we pick? Grab Brown? What if they take webzone favorite CJ Spiller at #13 and then the Hawks take Charles Brown at #14?

Who do you take at #17? Has to be OT right? Or the draft would be a fail?

Any time a team drafts purely for need it hardly ever works out in a good way. You don't leave talent on the board which can help your team just because you have a hole. Hell the hole at RT isn't even that huge. People are acting like we're going to play with 4 guys on the line. There have been highly successful RTs drafted outside of the first round. Not to mention with the improvement in coaching things should be better even if we field the same players.

Originally posted by Dominate:
I think i`d rather have Kyle Wilson at 17. He has return skills which makes him more valuable to our team from day one.

Agreed.

You take Haden and Thomas and you have two high picks that won't see the field very much during a year when the division is ripe for the taking.

Best OT available at 13 and Wilson at 17 and we get a starting RT, our biggest need and a nickel/dime back that can be our KR/PR man for a year or two until he becomes a starting CB.

But Im cool with Spiller at 13 and best OT available at 17, mainly because I think Terrel Brown is a very solid nickel back.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
No OT in the first round = draft fail

The whole world knows what our biggest need is and draft experts agree that the quality at the position drops of considerably after the first round - hell some even think that we'll miss out on the best tackles cuz we're not in the top 10 but I'd still rather get a second tier tackle with #13 or #17 than wait for the scraps in round 2.

That's ridiculous. No OT in the first round = upsetting. Hardly a draft fail.

We needed OT in the first round last year too...was that a fail?

Worst thing this team can do is say something so ignorant. What happens if Okung, Williams, Bulaga, Davis and even Campbell are all gone by the time we pick? Grab Brown? What if they take webzone favorite CJ Spiller at #13 and then the Hawks take Charles Brown at #14?

Who do you take at #17? Has to be OT right? Or the draft would be a fail?

Any time a team drafts purely for need it hardly ever works out in a good way. You don't leave talent on the board which can help your team just because you have a hole. Hell the hole at RT isn't even that huge. People are acting like we're going to play with 4 guys on the line. There have been highly successful RTs drafted outside of the first round. Not to mention with the improvement in coaching things should be better even if we field the same players.

Crabtree fell in our laps last year - he was the best player available but he ALSO filled a position of need. It was unexpected and it will hopefully work out well but the fact is we didn't address the the tackle position at all in the draft last year and that still leaves question marks about how good it was overall. Crabs could end up being an unproductive douche and a guy like Michael Oher (who was drafted later in Round 1) could be a perrennial all pro.

We had the #4 ranked scoring defense last year and the OP is suggesting we draft 2 defensive backs in the first round. How much better are you really expecting our defense to be?
Our offense was the suck and o-line play was the biggest culprit. The whole world knows this. We can get first round talent at OT with #13 and possibly #17 - so why not just do it and solidify the line?
Upgrading our overal talent level just slightly is not reason enough to avoid addressing a glaring need - and that is the problem with always trying to grab the BPA. You will often have little overall improvement on the team if you add depth to an already solid position rather than adding quality to a deficient position

[ Edited by scopur49er on Apr 8, 2010 at 12:18:18 ]

Originally posted by scopur49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by scopur49er:
No OT in the first round = draft fail

The whole world knows what our biggest need is and draft experts agree that the quality at the position drops of considerably after the first round - hell some even think that we'll miss out on the best tackles cuz we're not in the top 10 but I'd still rather get a second tier tackle with #13 or #17 than wait for the scraps in round 2.

That's ridiculous. No OT in the first round = upsetting. Hardly a draft fail.

We needed OT in the first round last year too...was that a fail?

Worst thing this team can do is say something so ignorant. What happens if Okung, Williams, Bulaga, Davis and even Campbell are all gone by the time we pick? Grab Brown? What if they take webzone favorite CJ Spiller at #13 and then the Hawks take Charles Brown at #14?

Who do you take at #17? Has to be OT right? Or the draft would be a fail?

Any time a team drafts purely for need it hardly ever works out in a good way. You don't leave talent on the board which can help your team just because you have a hole. Hell the hole at RT isn't even that huge. People are acting like we're going to play with 4 guys on the line. There have been highly successful RTs drafted outside of the first round. Not to mention with the improvement in coaching things should be better even if we field the same players.

Crabtree fell in our laps last year - he was the best player available but he ALSO filled a position of need. It was unexpected and it will hopefully work out well but the fact is we didn't address the the tackle position at all in the draft last year and that still leaves question marks about how good it was overall. Crabs could end up being an unproductive douche and a guy like Michael Oher (who was drafted later in Round 1) could be a perrennial all pro.

We had the #4 ranked scoring defense last year and the OP is suggesting we draft 2 defensive backs in the first round. How much better are you really expecting our defense to be?
Our offense was the suck and o-line play was the biggest culprit. The whole world knows this. We can get first round talent at OT with #13 and possibly #17 - so why not just do it and solidify the line?
Upgrading our overal talent level just slightly is not reason enough to avoid addressing a glaring need - and that is the problem with always trying to grab the BPA. You will often have little overall improvement on the team if you add depth to an already solid position rather than adding quality to a deficient position

And for the record, I believe in 3 scenarios in which drafting the BPA is worthwhile:

1) When the BPA and a position of need are one and the same (as was the case with Crabtree last year)

2) When your team has no talent and no depth and you need help all over the place

3) When your team is talent rich and has no glaring weaknesses that need to be addressed

Scenarios 2 and 3 are on opposite ends of the spectrum and we don't fall into either of those categories - like most teams I think we're somewhere in the middle.
Scenario 1 could happen but it's unlikely. The top tackles always go quickly.

Originally posted by scopur49er:
No OT in the first round = draft fail

The whole world knows what our biggest need is and draft experts agree that the quality at the position drops of considerably after the first round - hell some even think that we'll miss out on the best tackles cuz we're not in the top 10 but I'd still rather get a second tier tackle with #13 or #17 than wait for the scraps in round 2.

Reaching for an OT if the top 4 are gone = draft fail

Originally posted by pelos21:
Not really, the only issue is if Thomas will still be there at 17 and if we have the huevos to pull the trigger on Gaither.

You act like the Ravens have already agreed to give away their starting LT for the 49th pick in this year's draft and that Gatheir and the 49ers have already agreed to a long term contract. Don't worry, you're not alone. There's a lot of people around here that think that is some sort of automatic fact. Trust me, it's not.

Originally posted by scopur49er:
We had the #4 ranked scoring defense last year and the OP is suggesting we draft 2 defensive backs in the first round. How much better are you really expecting our defense to be?

You don't generally draft expecting your picks to be difference makers in the same year. Unless you are a bad team anyways. The Rams are drafting expecting most of their picks to come in and start as rookies, the 49ers now have enough talent that they are not (shouldn't be).

I would have no problem making the 2ndary much better if those guys are the best players on the board. They will play a lot even if they are not day one starters and will take over for Lewis and Clements by the beginning of next year (when Lewis and Clements will most likely not be 49ers).

Honestly, i dont think many of our fans will ever be happy, no matter what moves we make!

Originally posted by 209niner:
earl thomas, yes, but i'd rather have kyle wilson than haden. just don't think haden will be any different than clements, pretty much see them as the same player.

I would be very happy if we got a nate clements clone to replace nate. The comparison I keep hearing is Leon Hall. again would not be upset with a leon hall on our team.

IMO drafting Thomas and Haden would be drafting for the future at a time when we are an explosive KR/PR and Solid RT from taking control of the division for the first time in forever.

Clements, Spencer and Brown are solid so drafting a CB is for depth and a future starter.

Goldson, Lewis and Smith are decent so Thomas would probably takeover FS and move Goldson to SS if something happened to lewis..again..drafting a future starter.

But our defense was not our problem last year. I say go best OT and Lupati and take a future starter at safety in the 2nd round.

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:
IMO drafting Thomas and Haden would be drafting for the future at a time when we are an explosive KR/PR and Solid RT from taking control of the division for the first time in forever.

Clements, Spencer and Brown are solid so drafting a CB is for depth and a future starter.

Goldson, Lewis and Smith are decent so Thomas would probably takeover FS and move Goldson to SS if something happened to lewis..again..drafting a future starter.

But our defense was not our problem last year. I say go best OT and Lupati and take a future starter at safety in the 2nd round.

Brown is decent at best, but I agree he could get better. Even so we need depth for this year as one of them will go down for a few games. No team has their starting 2ndary stay healthy for 16 games. Haden would probably end up starting a few games this year at least, and then be the full time starter by the end of the year or beginning of next year when Clements will most likely be gone for salary reasons (if there even is a next year)...