The Only Players

Originally posted by illinois9er:

Originally posted by harryj:
i never got this concept

our run D is THE WORST by a country mile - its almost the worst in nfl history

the question is which players have the best chance at making us better

foster definitely does that he with our DL and bowman back we will have a great run D

I just don't value inside linebacker as high as pass rusher or QB. If we had a true NT this season our run defense wouldn't be near as bad. Obviously losing both of our starting ILBs didn't help either.

thats the whole point. I did the top 10 talent wise. And said I wouldnt touch anyone outside of the top ten at 2. Why have a top 3 pick and not get a top 3 talent??? Who cares about value this early in the draft!?!?! you grab the best player you can get. and no qb is even close to the best player even at 10

Originally posted by fan49:
thats the whole point. I did the top 10 talent wise. And said I wouldnt touch anyone outside of the top ten at 2. Why have a top 3 pick and not get a top 3 talent??? Who cares about value this early in the draft!?!?! you grab the best player you can get. and no qb is even close to the best player even at 10

All that matters is what NFL teams value in the top 10, and at this point its just too premature to try to identify who will and won't go in the top 10 with any degree of accuracy, there's a lot of disagreement among the various draftniks...etc.

Its likely that by the time we get to the draft, two QBs will be going in the top 10 and there will be potentially be some major risers like McKinley and others who blow up as more and more people view their tape and especially after the Senior Bowl, Combine and other offseason events.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Foster is NOT Willis at all.

This. Foster is a great prospect but I don't see him on the Willis and Kuechly level. He played with a beastly Bama DL that kept him clean from blockers most of the time. He won't have that same luxury with the 49ers. Not nearly as impressed with him as some others are, he certainly isn't worth a Top 3 pick.

Originally posted by fan49:

Originally posted by paulk205:

Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:
Garret, QB or trade down... anything other than this is a failure. Too many holes to spend a top 2 pick on a non-premium position.

In hindsight, and assuming you had the #2 overall pick in 2007, would you have drafted Willis, or was he not "value" there?

Look at some of the "premium" positions selected before him:

JaFatkus - QB is the most premium of premia, right?
Gaines Adams, Jamaal Anderson - pass rushers
Levi Brown - "blind side protector"
Ted Ginn - glamour, rather than "premium", but still much more glamorous than a staid old ILB

OK, so there was also Peterson, Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, who were all quality picks. But they all fall in the usual hit/miss ratio of high draft picks: about 1 in 2 ends up a good to great player, the other half either bust out or get injured early.

There's no "premium" and there's no "value". We have to stop thinking like draftniks. It's not a stock exchange. You don't add victories by "not reaching" and "stealing". You go BPA, period. Regardless if you already seem stocked on the position, or if it's not "premium". Teams that pick high do so because they can use more talent. We have a million holes in our roster. If Foster or whoever is BPA at #2, draft him, and let Kiper and his ilk bubble with anger that you "reached".

This

The 2 of you are b*****dizing what BPA is supposed to represent. BPA isn't a measure of which player is rated the highest at their respective position if you were to put them in Madden or rank every player out of 100 (if it was, kickers would be ranked as the BPA as early as round 1). It's really a measure of most valuable player factoring in current ability, potential ability, and positional value (along with other factors like injury risk, character concerns, etc.). QBs are regularly the BPA at the top of the draft because QB is the most valuable position in the NFL. Punters and kickers are probably the least valuable positions, so even if a kicker has a great chance of being a successful NFL kicker, they rarely get taken with an early pick.

In this draft, there's one of the best defensive prospects to come out in years and there isn't a clear cut franchise QB, so Myles Garrett is likely the best player available and will be the #1 pick. Even if there's an incredible kicker who hasn't missed a field goal in college, they'll never be worth the #2 pick because the value a great player adds at that position over a replacement pales in comparison to the value a great pass rusher or a great QB adds.

You can pick any draft and come up with examples of teams picking players that play at valuable positions too early or too late. The Patrick Willis example doesn't magically prove that teams are placing too much emphasis on LTs and not enough emphasis on inside linebackers or other less valuable positions. If you're choosing between a guy you think could be Khalil Mack and a guy you think could be Patrick Willis, you go with Khalil Mack all day.

It's a joke suggesting that teams should not look at positional values when drafting players. It's also ridiculous suggesting you ignore who is on your current roster and just go BPA period. You don't add much value by drafting 3-4 DEs or CBs every year and sticking some of them on the bench. The value you add through the draft depends on who you are replacing, how good the player you are adding is, and how valuable the position is. Teams will always and should always consider needs and player fit when drafting - it just shouldn't be the first consideration.

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
The 2 of you are b*****dizing what BPA is supposed to represent. BPA isn't a measure of which player is rated the highest at their respective position if you were to put them in Madden or rank every player out of 100 (if it was, kickers would be ranked as the BPA as early as round 1). It's really a measure of most valuable player factoring in current ability, potential ability, and positional value (along with other factors like injury risk, character concerns, etc.). QBs are regularly the BPA at the top of the draft because QB is the most valuable position in the NFL. Punters and kickers are probably the least valuable positions, so even if a kicker has a great chance of being a successful NFL kicker, they rarely get taken with an early pick.

In this draft, there's one of the best defensive prospects to come out in years and there isn't a clear cut franchise QB, so Myles Garrett is likely the best player available and will be the #1 pick. Even if there's an incredible kicker who hasn't missed a field goal in college, they'll never be worth the #2 pick because the value a great player adds at that position over a replacement pales in comparison to the value a great pass rusher or a great QB adds.

You can pick any draft and come up with examples of teams picking players that play at valuable positions too early or too late. The Patrick Willis example doesn't magically prove that teams are placing too much emphasis on LTs and not enough emphasis on inside linebackers or other less valuable positions. If you're choosing between a guy you think could be Khalil Mack and a guy you think could be Patrick Willis, you go with Khalil Mack all day.

It's a joke suggesting that teams should not look at positional values when drafting players. It's also ridiculous suggesting you ignore who is on your current roster and just go BPA period. You don't add much value by drafting 3-4 DEs or CBs every year and sticking some of them on the bench. The value you add through the draft depends on who you are replacing, how good the player you are adding is, and how valuable the position is. Teams will always and should always consider needs and player fit when drafting - it just shouldn't be the first consideration.

This. Not all positions are equal. Pass rushers, QB's and left tackles will always ranked the highest. I don't know how you can exclude positional value when it comes to ranking players.

We are going to draft 1 or 2 and we need a qb before any other position can be addressed not matter how much of a need. We need the most important position in the NFL to be addressed. QB or bust and I want Mitch "True"bisky!!! Anything else will be a disappointment and another waste of an offseason.

This is actually a good discussion.

As I can see it, there are three points raised by the people who responded to my post. I am not saying "objections" because I don't think we are arguing over the same thing. Correct me if I'm oversimplifying but I read them as:

1. Foster is no Willis.
2. "Premium" positions (QB, LT and pass-rushing DE/OLB) exist in the NFL. Good players in these positions translate to more wins than equally good (or even better) players in other, less premium positions.
3. BPA does not mean that you take the best player available in that position at the time you draft.

#1 is easy. I never said he was. I've seen the player a little on TV (as I suspect all of us have), and he looks pretty good. Is he THAT good? No idea. I hadn't seen Willis play at all before we drafted him either. What I said is: "If Foster or whoever is BPA at #2, draft him", regardless of the "premium" nature of their positions.

Ah, but you say. What about #2? Premium positions exist. How does this square up with what I just wrote?

It does, because we are talking about two different things. We're talking about good players already in the NFL vs the ways to obtain them (in this case the draft). It is absolutely correct that even a mediocre-but-not-disastrous QB (say, 2011 vintage Alex Smith) is more valuable than the proverbial Adam Viniateri. Sure. That's why the salaries are slanted as they are. NFL teams correctly pay the highest salaries to their greatest contributors, and (some exceptions aside) this means QB, DE, LT, the mythical "shutdown" corner...

But is drafting them in the first round (Top 5 in this case) the best way to go about it? I'm not going to trot out the usual litany of statistical outliers (Sherman in the fifth, Brady in the sixth, Bowman in the third, Warner from WalMart or wherever he was working), because you will trot out the usual (and correct) litany of statistical mean values. It is likelier to find your premium player in the premium position higher in the draft, simply because the other 31 teams are not (usually) that dumb as to let Brady fall to the sixth round and draft Gio Carmazzi before him (yeah, I know).

But it is not certain. And that's where #3 comes in. You always roll the dice in the draft. You try to estimate athletic ability, potential, character and so on, and you hope that you get them right AND pray that you are lucky and the player doesn't get injured in his first ever carry like Ki-Jana Carter, or reveals an unsettling love for the sauce like Aldon Smith, or dies from an OD from his first high ever like poor Len Bias. You make your estimates, say your prayers, and draft... BPA.

BPA is the player who is likeliest to translate in more wins for you down the road. It is almost inconceivable that this will be a punter, given the comparative contribution of even the best punter in history, not to mention that with the rookie slot money you will be paying a punter a stupid amount if you draft him at #2 overall. It is somewhat likelier that an ILB will be the guy, but again not certain. Perhaps it is likelier yet that a "premium" position will do you fine at #2 in that particular year, in which case go for it.

What you don't do is say "I'm picking Garrett if he's there, but if he's not and the QBs are no good, and the real best player is Foster (or whoever!!!), then I trade down because It Is Not Done To Draft ILBs That High.

Speaking of trading down. With the team as unspeakably awful as it is, we need... wait fot it: premium talent. Do we think it's there at #2? Yes, almost certainly (barring bad luck, as discussed above). Do we need more draft picks? Not really, we have something like 10 once again (the one thing Baalke is good at). If a team comes and offers you the proverbial Ricky Williams or Herschel Walker trade, sure, go for it. But trading down because there are no "premium position" players there? Not so sure.

Oh, and mind you. Garrett is my draft crush too. Not that he's a sure thing either.

Originally posted by paulk205:
This is actually a good discussion.

As I can see it, there are three points raised by the people who responded to my post. I am not saying "objections" because I don't think we are arguing over the same thing. Correct me if I'm oversimplifying but I read them as:

1. Foster is no Willis.
2. "Premium" positions (QB, LT and pass-rushing DE/OLB) exist in the NFL. Good players in these positions translate to more wins than equally good (or even better) players in other, less premium positions.
3. BPA does not mean that you take the best player available in that position at the time you draft.

#1 is easy. I never said he was. I've seen the player a little on TV (as I suspect all of us have), and he looks pretty good. Is he THAT good? No idea. I hadn't seen Willis play at all before we drafted him either. What I said is: "If Foster or whoever is BPA at #2, draft him", regardless of the "premium" nature of their positions.

Ah, but you say. What about #2? Premium positions exist. How does this square up with what I just wrote?

It does, because we are talking about two different things. We're talking about good players already in the NFL vs the ways to obtain them (in this case the draft). It is absolutely correct that even a mediocre-but-not-disastrous QB (say, 2011 vintage Alex Smith) is more valuable than the proverbial Adam Viniateri. Sure. That's why the salaries are slanted as they are. NFL teams correctly pay the highest salaries to their greatest contributors, and (some exceptions aside) this means QB, DE, LT, the mythical "shutdown" corner...

But is drafting them in the first round (Top 5 in this case) the best way to go about it? I'm not going to trot out the usual litany of statistical outliers (Sherman in the fifth, Brady in the sixth, Bowman in the third, Warner from WalMart or wherever he was working), because you will trot out the usual (and correct) litany of statistical mean values. It is likelier to find your premium player in the premium position higher in the draft, simply because the other 31 teams are not (usually) that dumb as to let Brady fall to the sixth round and draft Gio Carmazzi before him (yeah, I know).

But it is not certain. And that's where #3 comes in. You always roll the dice in the draft. You try to estimate athletic ability, potential, character and so on, and you hope that you get them right AND pray that you are lucky and the player doesn't get injured in his first ever carry like Ki-Jana Carter, or reveals an unsettling love for the sauce like Aldon Smith, or dies from an OD from his first high ever like poor Len Bias. You make your estimates, say your prayers, and draft... BPA.

BPA is the player who is likeliest to translate in more wins for you down the road. It is almost inconceivable that this will be a punter, given the comparative contribution of even the best punter in history, not to mention that with the rookie slot money you will be paying a punter a stupid amount if you draft him at #2 overall. It is somewhat likelier that an ILB will be the guy, but again not certain. Perhaps it is likelier yet that a "premium" position will do you fine at #2 in that particular year, in which case go for it.

What you don't do is say "I'm picking Garrett if he's there, but if he's not and the QBs are no good, and the real best player is Foster (or whoever!!!), then I trade down because It Is Not Done To Draft ILBs That High.

Speaking of trading down. With the team as unspeakably awful as it is, we need... wait fot it: premium talent. Do we think it's there at #2? Yes, almost certainly (barring bad luck, as discussed above). Do we need more draft picks? Not really, we have something like 10 once again (the one thing Baalke is good at). If a team comes and offers you the proverbial Ricky Williams or Herschel Walker trade, sure, go for it. But trading down because there are no "premium position" players there? Not so sure.

Oh, and mind you. Garrett is my draft crush too. Not that he's a sure thing either.

I think you summarized #1 and #2 well and I agree with those points. I would change 3 into "BPA represents the most valuable player available rather than strictly the player who is rated the highest at his respective position". I also think of BPA in the league wide context rather than the player who adds the most value to the team drafting. Even if we're set at 3-4 DE, Jonathan Allen may end up being the best player available in the sense that he's the most valuable player to other teams around the league who aren't set at the position.

Teams always pick whoever they think will add the most value to their team (even if they're valuing it on the basis of what they expect to get in return for trading that player). That isn't always the same thing as the best player available - if the 49ers are stuck with Jonathan Allen as the BPA and can't pull off a fair trade down from the 2nd pick, I could very easily see us "reaching for need" and drafting a player who adds a lot of value to the 49ers, but not as much value as someone like Jonathan Allen would add to another team.

If the Browns take Garrett, I have no idea who the best player available is or who would add the most value to the 49ers. My hope is that we'll like one of the QBs since the position makes good QBs extremely valuable, but if not, I could see us going in a lot of different directions. Jonathan Allen and Leonard Fournette are great players, but they play at less valuable positions.

If Garnett is gone, I could see any of the following players going #2 overall:
Allen (not a need at all, but we saw the Jets draft BPA with Leonard Williams)
Trubisky
Watson
Kizer
Humphrey (physical, talented, and very young #1 CB - I think he's a better prospect than Tabor)
Fournette (not a need, but could be BPA)
Mike Williams
Peppers

So is the zones draft crush Garrett?

Is he this year's version of Patrick Peterson and Tavon Austin?