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

just saw this now...hopefully this matches last year and all year long we get to hear MD pretend like he's still right while the rookies are major contributors to the team's success.

Granted this year I think it will be a much tougher task cuz these guys were more drafted as change of pace/eventual starters rather than last year when we were thin at positions like CB and OLB so Aldon and Cully played a big part on D while Hunter took over as Frank's main backup.

Personally I think it's crazy to grade picks on what could've been done. They took the guys they did for a reason. I'm sure Harbaugh and the 49ers front office knew about as much as there is to know about DeCastro so if they felt as strongly about him as you or some other draftniks they would've traded up to get him given the starter void at RG.

Originally posted by juycho:
This

MD has been quite clear from the start. He's giving his analysis, not trying to get inside the heads of the 9ers war room.

Points #1 (9ers evaluation of their OLine) and #2 (9ers evaluation of DeCastro) are completely unrelated to what he's trying to do.

Fantastic analysis as always, but don't agree especially the first two.

The POV that Jenkins will ONLY be a #2 is ludicrous and shows a lack of vision, IMO. There's a reason Baalke went after this kid and the Rams wanted him just as much. He excels at route running, he's a natural sure-handed pass catcher, speed like the Crank, and breaks out of routes seamlessly...w/o that much coaching let alone NFL coaching. In our system, he has some serious upside as he can get much stronger with one full year of our offseason workout regime, he a true die-hard work-ethic junkie, and he seems to be destined to fall under Jerry's wing which is outstanding in it's own merit. My point is, that the "scouts" ID'd AJ to be that WR who can line up anywhere and demand attention due to his "explosiveness". He will be used similarily like Aldon and generate just as effective results.

That explosiveness was also found in another skill position, RB. JH had his dose of LMJ and knows him first hand and what that speed and running ability can do to break open a game. Baalke and Harbaugh picked a sure fire playmaker who's success against great Ds has earned him the respect he deserves. Again, he fits the mold of the Niner, a die-hard worker w/love of football and the focus on it. Oh yea, he's very talented, too...bonus. His explosiveness will also help us in ST once he get more acclimated. But it just seems shortsighted when such a horrible grade is placed on this pick especially what he can bring to both offense and STs. I'm not a homer of his nor Oregon ball, but he simply jumps out at you on any highlight film and so many of them. So what if we have a full RB core? We just upgraded ours again.

A "F" and a "D" seem way off base just given the "need" parameter. Offensive explosiveness was #1 in my book over OG #2 (and let me tell you, I was cursing Baalke for not jumping up for DeCastro at the heat of the moment, too). But I'm not a scout. Yet, I know an offensive playmaker's value is much higher over OLs especially OGs even one as gifted as DeCastro. They didn't give up anything, got their boy and met the #1 need. Not only that, they get one of their athletic OLs while stockpiling picks for next year later so they can focus on that #1 need. So what do they do with their next pick? Another "explosive" offensive playmaker and how!

Only time will tell with this group, but IMO and POV, Baalke did very well again and the values will come in extra TDs, possession and field position in just this year alone. I agree with all your other grades except for RD 5 where I believe again Baalke wanted more versatility as well as depth especially since he could play STs. Unfortunately, we will have to wait on him and he's already far behind the curve.

In all, I dig your analysis, but disagree with some. But your MadDog, and props go to you for all you do for this site.

Mad Dog;
Reeapectfully disagree with you analysis! The Grade is an A!

Baalke is running the draft so it's no wonder MadDog gave it a bad grade.

Originally posted by smithgdwg:
Baalke is running the draft so it's no wonder MadDog gave it a bad grade.

A "C' is not a bad grade. It is an average/mediocre grade. A bad grade is a D or F.

Originally posted by ninertico:
Fantastic analysis as always, but don't agree especially the first two.

The POV that Jenkins will ONLY be a #2 is ludicrous and shows a lack of vision, IMO. There's a reason Baalke went after this kid and the Rams wanted him just as much. He excels at route running, he's a natural sure-handed pass catcher, speed like the Crank, and breaks out of routes seamlessly...w/o that much coaching let alone NFL coaching. In our system, he has some serious upside as he can get much stronger with one full year of our offseason workout regime, he a true die-hard work-ethic junkie, and he seems to be destined to fall under Jerry's wing which is outstanding in it's own merit. My point is, that the "scouts" ID'd AJ to be that WR who can line up anywhere and demand attention due to his "explosiveness". He will be used similarily like Aldon and generate just as effective results.

That explosiveness was also found in another skill position, RB. JH had his dose of LMJ and knows him first hand and what that speed and running ability can do to break open a game. Baalke and Harbaugh picked a sure fire playmaker who's success against great Ds has earned him the respect he deserves. Again, he fits the mold of the Niner, a die-hard worker w/love of football and the focus on it. Oh yea, he's very talented, too...bonus. His explosiveness will also help us in ST once he get more acclimated. But it just seems shortsighted when such a horrible grade is placed on this pick especially what he can bring to both offense and STs. I'm not a homer of his nor Oregon ball, but he simply jumps out at you on any highlight film and so many of them. So what if we have a full RB core? We just upgraded ours again.

A "F" and a "D" seem way off base just given the "need" parameter. Offensive explosiveness was #1 in my book over OG #2 (and let me tell you, I was cursing Baalke for not jumping up for DeCastro at the heat of the moment, too). But I'm not a scout. Yet, I know an offensive playmaker's value is much higher over OLs especially OGs even one as gifted as DeCastro. They didn't give up anything, got their boy and met the #1 need. Not only that, they get one of their athletic OLs while stockpiling picks for next year later so they can focus on that #1 need. So what do they do with their next pick? Another "explosive" offensive playmaker and how!

Only time will tell with this group, but IMO and POV, Baalke did very well again and the values will come in extra TDs, possession and field position in just this year alone. I agree with all your other grades except for RD 5 where I believe again Baalke wanted more versatility as well as depth especially since he could play STs. Unfortunately, we will have to wait on him and he's already far behind the curve.

In all, I dig your analysis, but disagree with some. But your MadDog, and props go to you for all you do for this site.

Thanks for your thoughts. If the Niners wanted to go WR, then I had other guys higher on the board, with Hill, Quick, Sanu all better options. I graded Jenkins the 7th best WR in the draft, below these players.

Hill was the top WR on my board at the time, and according to reports at the rookie camp for the Jets (got to take it with a grain of salt), he looked really, really good.

With those first rounders, a team really needs to maximize its value, and I just don't see Jenkins playing to the level of these other players.

Originally posted by genus49:
just saw this now...hopefully this matches last year and all year long we get to hear MD pretend like he's still right while the rookies are major contributors to the team's success.

Granted this year I think it will be a much tougher task cuz these guys were more drafted as change of pace/eventual starters rather than last year when we were thin at positions like CB and OLB so Aldon and Cully played a big part on D while Hunter took over as Frank's main backup.

Personally I think it's crazy to grade picks on what could've been done. They took the guys they did for a reason. I'm sure Harbaugh and the 49ers front office knew about as much as there is to know about DeCastro so if they felt as strongly about him as you or some other draftniks they would've traded up to get him given the starter void at RG.

Just an honest evaluation. However, for you, I take it all back and give all the picks an A+. Because, as we know, Baalke never misses. Hopes that makes you happy.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:

Just an honest evaluation. However, for you, I take it all back and give all the picks an A+. Because, as we know, Baalke never misses. Hopes that makes you happy.

OK, all done here. Time to close the thread down. Nothing more to say.

I would like to give myself a A+

Seriously though it would be much worse if MD gave homer opinions and just labeled every pick a winner. these grades are based on his opinions and how he felt guys should have been drafted. We all know he can be wrong just like he can be right. I don't get why isn't so hard to just say we have different opinions. We should argue those points and keep it civil.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:
MadDog, thanks for your draft analysis. I happen to find your posts very entertaining because I tend to strongly (but respectfully) disagree with your views. I know my timing in this thread isn't the greatest but I've been meaning to respond to it. I'm not a draft expert by any means. My knowledge of the rookies are based mainly on scouting reports I've come across. Therefore, I'm not here to debate or argue with your player evaluations. I'm more focused on your reasoning behind the grades.


I think it's unfair to grade Jenkins an F because you believe we "could've/should've" drafted DeCastro. Unless you were in the war room during the draft, you don't know if a trade up was even a possibility. Its unreasonable to give an F grade based on an assumption. If you believe that Jenkins at 30th overall deserves a C+ then it makes sense to just go with that grade since its based on what actually happened.



Based on your reasoning, I'm confused why you think this pick deserves a D. I'm not sure what you expect from a 5th round pick but I think selecting a "Good football player that is athletic, quick, and productive" in this round is great. I understand you believe we had greater needs/better players on the board, but why is picking a good football player in the 5th round (or any late round) worthy of a below average grade?



You chose to put more emphasis on the first few picks and less on the later selections, but don't you think ALL the picks are equally as important when analyzing a draft class? The most successful draft classes include gems that were found in the mid-late rounds. Consider the greatness of Walsh's 1986 draft class (which didn't have a 1st rounder but instead had many mid-late round picks). The point I'm trying to get across is that the draft is about getting good football players throughout the process, not just the first few picks. The mid-late rounds are pretty important too. With that said, lets take a look at your draft analysis (with equal emphasis across the entire class):

1. Jenkins (C+) "good player, solid #2 WR"
2. James (D) "rotational back"
3. Trade (A) "good negotiation"
4. Trade (A) "great value"
4. Trade (A) "great value"
4. Looney (B-) "smart, savvy, technically sound"
5. Fleming (D) "athletic, quick, productive"
6. Robinson (A) "steal, one of the best FS prospects, outstanding pick"
6. Slowey (A) "terrific pick, brilliant play for a 6th rounder"
7. Johnson (A) "2nd-3rd round value, could be starting material"

According to your analysis, the positives include: 4 potential starters (Jenkins, Looney, Robinson, Johnson), 3 great/good trades, and a versatile backup with excellent upside (Slowey). The negatives include: a rotational back who wont be getting significant snaps and a backup LB who's out of place. It appears your pros far outweigh your cons regarding this draft. Take away your disappointment in not "trading up" for DeCastro and it no longer looks like a "C" draft anymore.

Thanks for your post and kind thoughts.

In regards to the first rounder, most teams in a pre-draft sample were actively attempting to move down the board in the first round. While it is possible that a whole run of teams were not willing to move down, it is highly unlikely. At 21, the Bengals did move down from 21 to 27. I don't think they would have mind selecting at 30 instead. At 22, the Browns lost out on the player they wanted, Kendall Wright, to the Titans at 20. At 23, the Lions may have been willing to trade down. Not sure on them. I just think that if you really valued the player, you would have sealed the deal. The team didn't, for whatever reason. I understand you questioning the downgrade for not making the deal, but if this was a franchise QB, and the team didn't make the move to ensure the pick, I think more people would tend to feel the same way I do in this downgrade.

As for Fleming, the grade was really about finding good value at a position of need. The team is set at OLB and ILB for 2012 and 2013 with solid players across the board. So, while a 7th round selection for a backup at the position makes sense, as they did with Johnson, using a 5th rounder is simply not good value. So, while the player is athletic, and was a good player at ND, to me, he is a tough fit in our scheme, and there were better players on the board in more needy areas. Hence, the head scratcher comment.

Draft grades are almost top heavy in their evaluation since late rounders are generally thought of as bench/role players, not difference makers. I don't see Jenkins or James to make the same impact as other guys that were on the board.

We'll see how it all plays out.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
In regards to the first rounder, most teams in a pre-draft sample were actively attempting to move down the board in the first round. While it is possible that a whole run of teams were not willing to move down, it is highly unlikely. At 21, the Bengals did move down from 21 to 27. I don't think they would have mind selecting at 30 instead. At 22, the Browns lost out on the player they wanted, Kendall Wright, to the Titans at 20. At 23, the Lions may have been willing to trade down. Not sure on them. I just think that if you really valued the player, you would have sealed the deal. The team didn't, for whatever reason. I understand you questioning the downgrade for not making the deal, but if this was a franchise QB, and the team didn't make the move to ensure the pick, I think more people would tend to feel the same way I do in this downgrade.

Can you supply a link for the bolded? To what "pre-draft sample" are you referring?

You don't think the Browns would care if they picked at 30 rather than at 27, but do you have any evidence to support that statement?

You further state: ". . . if this was a franchise QB and the team didn't make the move to ensure the pick, I think more people would tend to feel the same way I do. . . ."

How is it fair to compare a RG to a franchise QB?

Are you saying that DeCastro's gonna be the equivalent of Andrew Luck? If so, why wasn't DeCastro taken in the top 5, at least?

Can you explain how, in your hypothesis, an Andrew Luck would fall to #21?

Do you have any evidence to support the assumption that if Luck was somehow still on the board at #21, (a) any team with the pick at #21 would be willing to trade down and forego drafting a franchise QB, OR (b) the Niner's would not have tried to move up for him?

The problem with speculation and unsupported hypotheticals is that they can lead to virtually any conclusion.

I.e., "If frogs had wings, they wouldn't land on their butts when they jump." Its difficult to argue with that statement, unless you recognize that its just imaginary.

You have an absolute right to express your beliefs, feelings, and opinions about the draft, and I am glad that you continue to do so. Your posts almost always provide food for thought.

However, if you want to convince the rest of us of the merit of your stated positions, some evidence would be helpful.

DeCastro was by far one of the better players regardless of postion, available in this draft.

The Steelers got thier perfect Lineman.

The Niners want a guard suited at pushing the pile, sealing and pinching off. They have thier pulling guard in Iupati.

Wouln't be suprised if none of the players drafted in 2012 are still on the roster in 5 years

Originally posted by Grinner:
DeCastro was by far one of the better players regardless of postion, available in this draft.

The Steelers got thier perfect Lineman.

The Niners want a guard suited at pushing the pile, sealing and pinching off. They have thier pulling guard in Iupati.

Wouln't be suprised if none of the players drafted in 2012 are still on the roster in 5 years

Obviously DeCastro wasn't rated as highly as some on the board think that's why he dropped. Looney is faster 4.9 vs 5.4 (Decastro), more physical than DeCastro and they got him in the 4th and picked up 3 picks.....Genius move by Baalke.

Are you saying that none of the players we drafted in 2012 will be on the team in 5 years......I disagree.

With all due respect to Maddog (and he does deserve a lot of respect for his tireless research and for compiling his lists), I do disagree with his assessment for the simple reason that he seemed to have misunderstood the intent of the Niners' first two picks, which was to add explosive, fast, and dangerous players to their rather pedestrian offense.

Now, one can certainly disagree with...

1) Their strategy or approach to personnel decisions this off-season (which was clearly to shore up any major weaknesses through free agency and then to have the luxury of choosing whomever they really liked in the draft)...or...

2) Their choice of players in the draft based on their strategy...or...

3) The positions they chose to fill in the draft (WR, RB, OG, OLB, FS, C, and OLB)...and the value that those players bring to the team.

MD seems to be questioning the strategy itself (but please correct me if I am wrong) because he felt they should have shored up their biggest obvious weakness (at RG) in the first round and then gone after the so-called "skill-position" players later. That is certainly a valid criticism based on the recent failures of the OL and in particular, the RG position.

However, what that fails to take into account is the Niners' own player evaluations on the guys they had on the current roster. If for example, the Niners really like Kilgore, Boone, and Person and believe that any or all of those guys can effectively play RG, then using a first round pick on a guy like DeCastro doesn't make sense in their minds....especially when one takes into account that they are already committing a lot of money to the other 4 OL starters. Even if DeCastro ends up being a Pro Bowl player, the team may not be able to afford 2 Pro Bowl OGs in the long term....just saying.

I tend to think that each player chosen in a draft should be evaluated on...

1) His overall talent
2) What immediate need he fills
3) His work ethic / love for the game
4) What intangibles he brings to the team (leadership, enthusiasm, etc.)
5) The chances that he has to play and contribute to the team in his first year or two in the league
6) Whether or not he is a good "fit" in whatever offensive or defensive scheme the team plays

Because all post-draft grades are not based on a player's actual field production (because the player hasn't even played yet), they really are all simply educated guesses. I admit that I like to read draft grades as much as the next guy does but I think the Niners' approach this year was rather unique because they had so few obvious needs. Therefore, they could afford to take a few risks (or felt they could) and go after specific players they really liked. Such an approach is very difficult to praise or criticize because again, so much is unknown to us.

Based on the above criteria however, I think the Niners did a very good job with their picks. There is no telling how they will all play out (whether they will all be productive players or not) but I believe the Niners had a solid strategy, stuck with that strategy, and made solid picks based on it.

Cheers!