There are 214 users in the forums
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Obviously the answer is DeCastro since he is a 1st round pick and Looney is a mid round pick. The question should be...Who was a better value where they were selected?
Originally posted by Jesu80ncleats:Dont be an ass, The post clearly made the presumption that he would make out starting line up regardless of position.
Originally posted by PhillyNiner:because hes a guard
I of course think the odds are on DeCastro. But I would bet the gap is much more narrow than people here would have you believe. If Decastro was so fantastic why did he drop so far in the first, beyond that once he fell a good bit, if he was so much better wouldnt his college coach have made a bigger effort to move up and get him. I think that Harbaugh assigned a value on him based on knowing him so well and it was lower than a lot of the league. Maybe if he fell to us in the first round we take him..maybe our F.O. saw him as more of a second rounder... either way I would bet they think the gap between him and Looney is closer than this board does.
Originally posted by susweel:
MD gave us a F for not trading up for DeCastro.
Originally posted by nw9erfan:Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...
MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?
The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....
The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.
As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.
Cheers!
Originally posted by nw9erfan:Well stated.
Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...
MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?
The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....
The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.
As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.
Cheers!
Originally posted by MadDog49er:
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Yes......and as much as I respect MD, I disagree with him on this point. It comes down to this...
MD's thinking is that the Niners have struggled mightily to put a solid player at that RG spot for years, ever since Smiley left. Quite true. The question then becomes... Does adding a great quality RG solve the Niners' offensive problems enough to warrant investing1st and 3rd round picks on said player (which is what it would have taken to trade up for DeCastro)?
The Niner FO clearly didn't think so, even if they felt that DeCastro might someday become a Pro Bowl player. In general, I don't think the team places a high value on the OG position, thinking they can develop a solid OG via good coaching and therefore don't need to invest a high draft pick on one....instead saving those high picks for skill players such as the guys we've seen them draft in the past two years.....pass rusher, QB, CB, WR, and RB....
The Niners' Front Office's thinking obviously was that they already had a good developmental RG in Kilgore and simply needed to add a decent prospect to compete for that position (which could be had later in the draft)....and of course, that is what happened. They felt that the teams' biggest weakness last season was not the OL per se, but playmakers on offense or, more specifically, guys who can stretch the field, get open consistently on pass routes, and actually create concern for opposing defenses.
As we all know, the team was woeful on third down and in the red zone, so they chose to get playmakers with their first two picks. Now....we can all argue about the players themselves and whether they got good value at those slots in the draft but I think no one can argue with their strategy of adding playmakers and guys with top speed.
Cheers!
I understand the team's perspective, even though I disagree with it. Only time will tell who is correct.
So far, I am pretty much dead on in my prediction that DeCastro would win this thread in a 60-40 ratio. At 66-34, right in the park.
Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
Originally posted by ads_2006:
Originally posted by AllTimeGreat:
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Well done Buck. It appears MD is incorrect.
It's curious how DeCastro is only leading 64-36%. Either all the people voting for Looney are afraid to show their faces in here, or someone is stuffing the ballots....
or maybe MD is right....
Never said he couldn't be. But the fact is that the poll results don't match up with the posts in this thread. That's all I'm trying to say.
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Obviously the answer is DeCastro since he is a 1st round pick and Looney is a mid round pick. The question should be...Who was a better value where they were selected?
You.....are correct, sir...
...and I like to see well-thought out responses.
...
