MadDog's Niners Draft Grade and Analysis for 2012 NFL Draft

Originally posted by WildBill:
Mike Lombardi wrote a piece before the draft about his time with Walsh. You don't draft for value, you draft because the player can contribute. Walsh bristled when scouts said the player wasn't a good 2nd round pick but was a good value for a third round. Here is the link to that article and some highlights...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82857c66/article/bill-walshs-nfl-draft-philosophies-six-lessons-from-the-master

Walsh hated hearing a scout tell him a player was, for example, not a good second-rounder, but a great third-rounder. He always said the only time people talk about rounds is in draft preparation and on draft day. Never during any player's career, Walsh would vent, does anyone say a player was picked in the right round. The day after the draft, every player is graded on his playing performance, not his selection round. Walsh only cared about what a player would be able to do for his team. He thought "round talk" was the wrong way for a scout to measure his own abilities. It was not talent evaluation, but rather round prediction.

Even though Walsh loved to move up or down...
When the cost of draft picks soared in prior years, moving down was a great option. But with the new collective bargaining agreement's reduced rookie pay scale, it is not as financially dangerous to just make the pick. Walsh believed there was always someone worth picking, because three years from any draft, people will look back at the great players in the league who were passed over by a number of teams. Once again, Walsh was all about the talent, not the spot.

Watch out for players from downtrodden programs -- particularly programs that have just fired a coach -- being unfairly downgraded. In Walsh's mind, players from a program that has just fired its coach pay a price in draft evaluation. Coaches rarely admit the real reason for their termination -- bad coaching -- instead placing the blame on bad players. These side effects of a losing culture can taint a scout's visit to a particular school. Walsh insisted that all the college prospects in this situation had to be examined closely.

Thanks Wildbill! Enjoyed reading this very much. I'm not a big fan of Lombardi but he has worked for some of the great football minds. My favorite comment was about playing fast. Walsh hated any wasted time in practice and considered it an insult to the players. Harbaugh has that same intensity and view. Moss noticed it right away and commented on the speed of practice...and they really aren't actually practicing yet. Efficiency and intensity toward enhanced performance! Back in SF!

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by ishkabibel:

Originally posted by English:

13 picks! Unless we re-trade them. That is going to be an epic draft

I'm only counting 12. I might be missing something. Ive got 7 regular picks, a 3,5 and 6 from 2012 draft, a 7th for the USC safety mistake, and a compensatory pick ( figuring 3 players lost, 2gained). Did I miss something?

At this point it is only 11 picks.


The compensation pick is likely, but we just do not have that pick (or picks) yet.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/30/49ers-lead-the-way-with-four-extra-2013-draft-picks/

Good grief. Yes, I am aware of this.

In addition to the players selected, you also have to give a slight bump in the grade due to the fact Baalke set up 2013 pretty well for the 49ers. If I remember correctly, both Bowman and Goldson are scheduled to become free agents after this upcoming season, so we need to set ourselves up to win but with the future in mind. I doubt we'll have the cap money to sign both, and of the two I would prefer Bowman. Those extra picks does give the 49ers options going into next off-season with respect to the salary cap and its pending free agents. In the case of Goldson in particular, it affords the 49ers a bit more leverage in ongoing negotiations. Ie. the ability to move up/down/etc to draft a safety early.

When you look at the whole off-season, you have to give Baalke a ton of credit. He managed to re-sign all the keys players on defence while substantially improving the playmakers on offense, and he did this while gaining more picks for 2013 and being under the cap with over 1 million to spare. Surely you can find examples of failures, the overpaying of Ahmad Brooks would be my chief one, but there have been many successes. Sometimes we focus too much on the trees on these forums and miss the forest.

Time will tell, but my early impressions of Baalke as "the man" are hugely positive. Don't forget, in addition to last years fantastic draft and the stuff I've described above, he's the man responsible for luring Harbaugh.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
On the last version of your big board you had Fleming at #168. The Niners took him at #165, as an OLB. (That's where the Niners say he's gonna play, along with ST.)

Yet you think this pick only merits a "D" grade? That seems inconsistent on your part.

To the extent your criticism is based on the assumption that Fleming's gonna be an ILB, it appears you have made an error.

No wonder you're scratching your head over this pick; it appears you misdiagnosed the selection. It wouldn't be fair to assume that the team took AJ Jenkins as a TE, then criticise them for making a bad TE pick. Or to say that LMJ was drafted as a DE, and then argue that he can't set the edge on the run and lacks sufficient push to get to the QB, so the pick gets a low grade.

In addition, what better players--at OLB--were still on the board at #165? Cam Johnson? You had him pretty high (#76), and the Niners got him a #237. It doesn't seem fair to criticise them for not taking him at #165 when they got him at #237, does it?

Well? Wot gives? Besides the sound of crickets?

Com'n MD, this the perfect opportunity to pat yourself on the back for having Fleming at #168, . . . and the Niners took him at #165.

What genius, what a brilliant draft move, how great was that? Baalke must have been channeling the ole MD hisself on this pick!

Except Baalke took the guy as an OLB, and you thought he's an ILB. Whoops.

Seriously, how can you give a D grade for a selection that's nearly identical with the slot you have that selection on your own board?

#168 vs. #165. Missed it by three = a "D?"

That's like getting a 97/100 on a test and getting a "D." Must be one hell of a grading curve!

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by ishkabibel:

Originally posted by English:
13 picks! Unless we re-trade them. That is going to be an epic draft

I'm only counting 12. I might be missing something. Ive got 7 regular picks, a 3,5 and 6 from 2012 draft, a 7th for the USC safety mistake, and a compensatory pick ( figuring 3 players lost, 2gained). Did I miss something?

At this point it is only 11 picks.


The compensation pick is likely, but we just do not have that pick (or picks) yet.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/30/49ers-lead-the-way-with-four-extra-2013-draft-picks/

Good grief. Yes, I am aware of this.

Sorry.

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

MadDog made it clear that he likes the player, but thought we passed up on someone better. Time will tell. I agree with him. I don't hate Jenkins, I just think he has a limited role and I don't envision him as a starter.

Among positives, Jenkins is deceptively quick, however while he has decent speed, he is not as fast as his 4.3 time would indicate. Another positive is his focus and initial burst off the line, also deceptive in this regard, surprising defenders often times.

Jenkins' lesser traits are that he lacks strength compared to most of the receivers of this class. He is not going to break a lot of tackles, and he's got average moves in the open field. His lack of strength also hurts him when fighting for balls, negating his good vertical because most corners can out-jockey him, and when running with the ball he is a guy who is susceptible to fumbles. This lack of strength again haunts him in press coverage when he faces a physical corner that locks onto him to keep him from using his quickness to get downfield. Jenkins must also fix his problems stopping on his routes -- that can KILL a QB's confidence in you. He is generally good with his hands but not as consistent at "plucking the ball" or extending his arms as I would have liked to see the past season. I think his production was slightly inflated due to being the only legitimate option, but that's just my opinion.

Jenkins weakness is his YAC, but that could be coached and his strength can be strengthened. If you watched old tape of how walsh coached his players in making decisions of which route to take after the catch and why. I also don't think Jenkins has to out muscle the CB if the ball is thrown properly. On the deep ball, he just needs to get open, according to scouting reports he gets good separation, watching the vids of him it is his choice of which way to break. Besides smaller receivers rarely break the tackle, they outrun or put a move on them which goes back to my statement about coaching. You don't catch 90 balls by getting outjockeyed much. All he has to do also is just beat the guy and catch the ball providing the QB does his job of placing it on the money. The thing is most people complained our receivers dropped balls or weren't getting open. Well, if he gets pass the 1st down marker and catches the ball, that will be a big step, even if he doesn't break many balls. Catch the ball first, get pass the marker, then worry about more later.

I think it's possible Jenkins could become a starter at some point, but I'm not sure when. He caught a lot of passes because he was just about the only option on the team. But I don't want to take away credit for him being talented. It's not all because he was the only option, of course. Several of Jenkins big plays were plays where the DB didn't even look at him and blew the coverage assignment going to another player. Jenkins had at least two long touchdowns like that.

It's true that if he can get stronger without losing speak that will help him a ton, and it's not something unrealistic for him to attain. Just will have to see how long it takes and/or if he will work on that or other things. My comment about being out-jockeyed is specific to the issue of the QB placing the ball where it's supposed to be. If the QB does that, and the WR gets bumped out of the way because he can't maintain position against a physical corner also going for the ball, that's something the WR could work on to improve. That's all I'm getting at.

Overall, Jenkins is a talented receiver, but I think 2 or more complete years of development will be needed before he becomes starter-worthy, in my opinion.

Originally posted by AmpLee:

You know MD, at times I really appreciate your presence on the zone. You're knowledgeable and you put time into your pieces. For that I thank you. And since you've been back you've been less pompous, which is also appreciated. We may disagree on management but we're all fans and no matter our critique we all want the Niners to succeed. So here's to hoping our first two picks go against your opinion, and the rest of the draft aligns with it.

- Cheers

I agree, and hope that I am wrong. Just got to keep it real. The players suddenly don't get Better just because they put on Niners uniforms

Originally posted by WildBill:

It is not that JH didn't like Decastro, but they feel must good about Kilgore and Alex Boone, although Looney will compete, look for him to be the primary backup for center/guard and sit and learn unless the chosen starter does a Chilo. The niners went into the draft with a certain mindset. I think, when they saw L. James dropping, they decided against moving up for a guard. Their philosophy for this draft was to get faster on offense. Adding Owusu is more evidence of that. With Moss, and VD, they now have a very fast track team.



The niners obviously had a TYPE of player they wanted, not just any wr. As for RB, James was there, and they felt he was more talented, but more importantly didn't think he would be available at their pick. Harbaugh had nightmares against him, and now wants him to cause nightmares for others.

Again, the niners went with the mindset of the need for speed. Randle is not a speed guy and neither is Miller. Cordy and Amini are raw, both would be worse than A. Davis was his rookie year if thrust into the line up. Both played tackle not guard in college. Plus Davis would suffer with a rookie next to him.

It is obvious the team went for speed. I just think they selected the wrong players.

Originally posted by bzborow1:

In addition to the players selected, you also have to give a slight bump in the grade due to the fact Baalke set up 2013 pretty well for the 49ers. If I remember correctly, both Bowman and Goldson are scheduled to become free agents after this upcoming season, so we need to set ourselves up to win but with the future in mind. I doubt we'll have the cap money to sign both, and of the two I would prefer Bowman. Those extra picks does give the 49ers options going into next off-season with respect to the salary cap and its pending free agents. In the case of Goldson in particular, it affords the 49ers a bit more leverage in ongoing negotiations. Ie. the ability to move up/down/etc to draft a safety early.

When you look at the whole off-season, you have to give Baalke a ton of credit. He managed to re-sign all the keys players on defence while substantially improving the playmakers on offense, and he did this while gaining more picks for 2013 and being under the cap with over 1 million to spare. Surely you can find examples of failures, the overpaying of Ahmad Brooks would be my chief one, but there have been many successes. Sometimes we focus too much on the trees on these forums and miss the forest.

Time will tell, but my early impressions of Baalke as "the man" are hugely positive. Don't forget, in addition to last years fantastic draft and the stuff I've described above, he's the man responsible for luring Harbaugh.

Originally posted by bzborow1:

In addition to the players selected, you also have to give a slight bump in the grade due to the fact Baalke set up 2013 pretty well for the 49ers. If I remember correctly, both Bowman and Goldson are scheduled to become free agents after this upcoming season, so we need to set ourselves up to win but with the future in mind. I doubt we'll have the cap money to sign both, and of the two I would prefer Bowman. Those extra picks does give the 49ers options going into next off-season with respect to the salary cap and its pending free agents. In the case of Goldson in particular, it affords the 49ers a bit more leverage in ongoing negotiations. Ie. the ability to move up/down/etc to draft a safety early.

When you look at the whole off-season, you have to give Baalke a ton of credit. He managed to re-sign all the keys players on defence while substantially improving the playmakers on offense, and he did this while gaining more picks for 2013 and being under the cap with over 1 million to spare. Surely you can find examples of failures, the overpaying of Ahmad Brooks would be my chief one, but there have been many successes. Sometimes we focus too much on the trees on these forums and miss the forest.

Time will tell, but my early impressions of Baalke as "the man" are hugely positive. Don't forget, in addition to last years fantastic draft and the stuff I've described above, he's the man responsible for luring Harbaugh.

I did adjust my grade higher with the bonus picks, although the vast majority of the extras are late rounders. The third is very nice though.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:

Well? Wot gives? Besides the sound of crickets?

Com'n MD, this the perfect opportunity to pat yourself on the back for having Fleming at #168, . . . and the Niners took him at #165.

What genius, what a brilliant draft move, how great was that? Baalke must have been channeling the ole MD hisself on this pick!

Except Baalke took the guy as an OLB, and you thought he's an ILB. Whoops.

Seriously, how can you give a D grade for a selection that's nearly identical with the slot you have that selection on your own board?

#168 vs. #165. Missed it by three = a "D?"

That's like getting a 97/100 on a test and getting a "D." Must be one hell of a grading curve!

Patience, grasshopper. Been very busy with other obligations the last couple days. I did have Fleming as a fifth rounder, not in my grade, but in where I felt some team would grab him. Not sure if Baalke was channeling me, but he should have dialed during the first round,

As for Fleming's position, teams varied on where they saw him on their roster. Some would have put him inside, some outside. Running a 34 team, you usually do not draft OLBs who are 6'1", so his height and weight measurables really fit inside for most squads. That being said, it appears the team intends to put him on the outside, which means he will get zero playing time behind Smith, who isn't going anywhere for a long time, Brooks, who just signed a long term extension, and Haralson, who should still be competing for major playing time, since he has been the starter in this defense for some time,

To maximize value for the pick, a team really wants to get the best talent at the best value in the draft in the neediest area that fits your scheme. Fleming is a guy who will Be a core special teamer, but that position for that talent in that position in the draft was not a good option. The teams still needs help in the secondary, has a TE in the last year of his contract, has a NT in the last year of his contract, has no rotational players at DE right now, and is still lean at center/guard.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Patience, grasshopper. Been very busy with other obligations the last couple days. I did have Fleming as a fifth rounder, not in my grade, but in where I felt some team would grab him. Not sure if Baalke was channeling me, but he should have dialed during the first round,

As for Fleming's position, teams varied on where they saw him on their roster. Some would have put him inside, some outside. Running a 34 team, you usually do not draft OLBs who are 6'1", so his height and weight measurables really fit inside for most squads. That being said, it appears the team intends to put him on the outside, which means he will get zero playing time behind Smith, who isn't going anywhere for a long time, Brooks, who just signed a long term extension, and Haralson, who should still be competing for major playing time, since he has been the starter in this defense for some time,

To maximize value for the pick, a team really wants to get the best talent at the best value in the draft in the neediest area that fits your scheme. Fleming is a guy who will Be a core special teamer, but that position for that talent in that position in the draft was not a good option. The teams still needs help in the secondary, has a TE in the last year of his contract, has a NT in the last year of his contract, has no rotational players at DE right now, and is still lean at center/guard.

So now you're saying the Niners shouldn't have taken Fleming in the 5th round because he's not gonna start? He's just a special teams guy? Just how many fifth round picks are expected to be starters as rookies in the NFL? That doesn't sound like a very sound basis for your continued criticism of the Fleming pick.

Just how many NTs or DEs or Cs or Gs play special teams? Not many. And not many TEs play special teams either. Not when there's a mobile and hostile ILB, OLB, or FB who can fill the bill. And the Niners got a secondary guy, Trent Robinson, a guy you actually like, so your reasoning there seems a little hollow.

Looks like Fleming was drafted primarily for ST, and has the versatility to play OLB and maybe ILB if need be. He's 6'2" and 245, ran a 4.55 at his pro day, and appears to be a good character, gold helmet, football player type. Not a superstar, but not a "D": pick either. .

Bottom line, you had Fleming listed at #168 on your board, the Niners took him at #165, but you still give them a "D" for the pick. Seems, at the least, inconsistent on your part.

Good analysis as always MD. Always funny to look back and see how the analysis actually panned out. I believe last year you gave the Niners a terrible grade as well. Overall, I would agree with most of it, with the exception of your "trade speculation."

You should not be basing your analysis on "Cleveland was believed to want to trade" or "It would ahve only cost a third round to move up 8 spots." You go into in depth analysis on players abiliities and potential futures in the NFL, then follow up with what I interpret as PURE speculation. Maybe the option to trade up was not there? Maybe they feel good with Kilgore, Boone and Person?

Niners seem to be "bucking the trend" or taking a popular or expected pick. They seem to be thinking a little more unconventional since Harbaugh has come on board. I am guessing you will not like any of their drafts for the next few years.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:
Seriously. There is no evidence that the Browns were open to trading back from #22 to #30, or that any other team with a pick before #24 (where DeCasto was taken) was willing or interested in making such a trade. MD's criticism is purely hypothetical, all imaginary. Its based on the assumption that within less than 5 minutes the Niners could have (a) read the minds of the Brown's war room staff and known that they were not happy with the selection before them, then (b) called them up and convinced them to swap #22 for #30 and #92. (IIRC, the Browns took QB Weedon at #22, and turned in their pick promptly, in less than two and a half minutes--as if they were happy with the pick at a position of need for them. Not a likely trade partner, it seems.)

Then there's the cost. Assuming they chose to make the deal, they get a RG who MIGHT be a probowler someday and lose AJ Jenkins--who also MIGHT be a probowler someday, and the #92 pick--which Baalke brilliantly turned into not one, not two, but THREE future picks, including a third rounder next year.

The question that presents itself is this: if DeCastro was THAT good (third best pick of the draft, behind Luck and RG III per MD), isn't it likely that Harbaugh would have known it and made sure they landed the guy? Isn't it more likely that DeCastro, although good, is really not THAT good--not the second coming of Steve Hutchinson or Larry Allen after all. The Niners clearly made the best call--sticking with what they had at #30, not sacrificing #30 and #92 for a RG.

Then there's the question of just how big an impact a RG, even a very good one, is gonna have. RGs typically pass protect and open running lanes. Its not an easy job, but its not considered a skill position. So who's more important for the current version of the Niners--who have four first round draft picks on the OL already--another OL, or additional skill players at WR and at RB, who will take the offense to the next level? Seems like a no brainer.

Hey, Maddie, what gives here?

Btw, in case you think I'm picking on you, not so. Appreciate the fact that you raise these issues about the draft. You have always had the ability to raise relevant issues about the team. Sometimes your analysis gets skewed, and you're too thin skinned (IMHO, or maybe its just with me) when a potential error or possible misjudgment in a post is pointed out, but you do see and raise the issues. Nothing bad about that.

So, link, or it didn't happen. .

Originally posted by SJniner7:
Good analysis as always MD. Always funny to look back and see how the analysis actually panned out. I believe last year you gave the Niners a terrible grade as well. Overall, I would agree with most of it, with the exception of your "trade speculation."

You should not be basing your analysis on "Cleveland was believed to want to trade" or "It would ahve only cost a third round to move up 8 spots." You go into in depth analysis on players abiliities and potential futures in the NFL, then follow up with what I interpret as PURE speculation. Maybe the option to trade up was not there? Maybe they feel good with Kilgore, Boone and Person?

Niners seem to be "bucking the trend" or taking a popular or expected pick. They seem to be thinking a little more unconventional since Harbaugh has come on board. I am guessing you will not like any of their drafts for the next few years.

Last year's post draft grade was a C, but many erroneously think I gave an F grade to the Smith pick and the entire draft. Just like last year, it has some highs and lows.

As for trading up, the Pats found a partner at 21 in the Benglas to move up from their 27th spot. The Browns probably would have moved down since the pick they really wanted from Cleveland media sources, K. Wright, was selected at 20. The Lions may have moved down as well.

In the end, teams like the Eagles and Patriots took the right approach, and did not use excuses to prevent them from the player they wanted. The Eagles waited and then pounced on Cox, the Pats waited and pounced on Jones. Either Baalke did not prepare for this situation effectively, or he did not believe sacrificing a third rounder was good value. In either case, the consequences will be that the team missed on a player that grades the best of any guard entering the draft in a decade, and in a serious position of need.

DeCastro walks in from Day One as the starter, and the team doesn't have to play games attempting to figure out how to resolve the position. It allows Kilgore to prepare to take over for Goodwin in a year, and allows Boone to be the primary backup for LT and RT. In the end, it solves our OL problems. If Looney comes in and plays at DeCastro's level, or if Kilgore or Boone or A. Davis steps in and plays at DeCastro's level, then I will be wrong in my review (and you will see a mountain of responses from board members who think I am way too harsh). I just don;t see it happening.

As for trade down partners, according to multiple reports, the majority of teams in the first round stated that they were looking to move down. I have a hard time believing that Baalke was a the cruel victim of circumstances, and that nobody wanted to trade with him. That was the excuse used last year regarding Patrick Peterson.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Either Baalke did not prepare for this situation effectively, or he did not believe sacrificing a third rounder was good value. In either case, the consequences will be that the team missed on a player that grades the best of any guard entering the draft in a decade, and in a serious position of need.

Lol. Couldn't it also be possible that Baalke and Harbaugh thought DeCastro was overrated? After all, Harbaugh had a perspective on DeCastro that no other coach had access to. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't think you're looking at this completely objectively here.