John Lynch - 49ers GM

Dude might tweak out his injury by doing one too many sit ups

OR

His career will be just meh once Acorn Head converts him to a safety

#Bosa

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by ilikecheerleaders:
Why would you trade multiple first round picks when

A) you're rebuilding and need draft capital

And

B) next years draft is the deepest class of edge rushers in years

If you're just going to gamble that pick on an end anyways why not take the sure thing?

It was not just "that pick" though, it was "those" picks and they would not all be used on ends in all likelihood.

Originally posted by walker807:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by walker807:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by ilikecheerleaders:
Why would you trade multiple first round picks when

A) you're rebuilding and need draft capital

And

B) next years draft is the deepest class of edge rushers in years

If you're just going to gamble that pick on an end anyways why not take the sure thing?

Probably just the contract plus the extra picks. Nick Bosa looks like a very good comparison to Mack and is a very real possibility to be our pick. Nothings guaranteed with him is the main concern. If he does work out, then we have our premier pass rusher plus the rookie contract over highest paid ever plus the extra picks we wouldn't give up in 2020 etc. Its a bit of a gamble but with Jimmy out our pick got way more valuable.

LMFAO!!!!

Yea, OK...

He seemed to be dominating in the 3 games he played this year. Looked as good, if not better, than Mack in college.

Yea, Mack and Lil Bosa are the same caliber player after three games... SMH

Seems fair.


These fines are so bizarre.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Similar or the same? It was reported that only the Bears ACTUALLY offered two firsts and the Raiders still had to give up their own 2nd to be able to say, they got 2 1sts out of the deal.

Neither the Jets or Niners made the same and they were "finalists."

Also, any FO will play one team against the other in negotiations and give everyone a chance to 1-up the best offer.

Clearly, we did not make the best offer.

I've finally come around on this.

We clearly did not make the best offer and the other part of this that's not being discussed - we really didn't want to pay a defensive player as much as or more than our unproven QB.

This system for player value feels eerily familiar. Terms like "aggressively prudent" or "aggressive with parameters" just feels exactly like comments Baalke made over his tenure here.

Who's setting these parameters and why?

Baalke's claim was why pay big bucks to players in FA who never made a pro bowl or weren't all pros?

OK I can somewhat understand that sentiment but there WERE pro bowlers and all pros and defensive MVP's and YOUNG players and we still either never pursued them or our own parameters ensured we remained the bridesmaid.

Brick by brick? Your bricks are brittle and your foundation stinks, John.

Does anyone have a link that states what the 49ers offered the Raiders in the Mack sweepstakes?

Originally posted by Bluesbro:

Does anyone have a link that states what the 49ers offered the Raiders in the Mack sweepstakes?

We don't have anything except a radio quote from Lynch that said our offer was "similar"

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by Bluesbro:
Does anyone have a link that states what the 49ers offered the Raiders in the Mack sweepstakes?

We don't have anything except a radio quote from Lynch that said our offer was "similar"

Thanks. So why is it being stated in this thread that the 49ers did not offer as much as the Bears? Either way, I am glad they did not. WAY too much to give up for a non FQB.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

This system for player value feels eerily familiar. Terms like "aggressively prudent" or "aggressive with parameters" just feels exactly like comments Baalke made over his tenure here.

Who's setting these parameters and why?

Baalke's claim was why pay big bucks to players in FA who never made a pro bowl or weren't all pros?

OK I can somewhat understand that sentiment but there WERE pro bowlers and all pros and defensive MVP's and YOUNG players and we still either never pursued them or our own parameters ensured we remained the bridesmaid.

Brick by brick? Your bricks are brittle and your foundation stinks, John.

Again, I'm will to wait but things don't look great at the construction site and it's not all just injuries and youth.

Preach. All we can do is hope ShanaLynch self-reflect and grow exponentially from this.

Originally posted by Bluesbro:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by Bluesbro:

Does anyone have a link that states what the 49ers offered the Raiders in the Mack sweepstakes?

We don't have anything except a radio quote from Lynch that said our offer was "similar"

Thanks. So why is it being stated in this thread that the 49ers did not offer as much as the Bears? Either way, I am glad they did not. WAY too much to give up for a non FQB.

'Similar' is not the same as 'same' or 'better.'

From an article in the newsfeed from the Sacramento Bee:

"Lynch has said he made a competitive trade offer for Khalil Mack, who's the front-runner for Defensive Player of the Year with the Chicago Bears, but didn't want to risk too much draft capital in a deal."

I guess there is room for legitimate debate here. Lynch has stated more than once that he wants to build the team through the draft and selected free agents but not do it in a way that hamstrings them in terms of the cap. Obviously they have a lot of cap space now but are probably looking at a couple of their own guys, most noticeably Buckner, who they will have to deal with soon. How does adding a player like Mack alter that plan? Clearly he is a terrific player, I'm not sure the team could have ridden his talent to a better record once Jimmy G went down. It is pretty clear from their performance this year that they are probably more than one player away from being a serious contender, do you want to payout all of that money for two players who might win you a couple of more games a year on pure talent or do you want to build a stronger foundation of core players first. Bringing in someone like Mack makes a lot of sense under the second scenario, perhaps less so under the first. I think it will be interesting to see how Chicago does this year because it seems to me that they are in a kind of similar situation. They have been bringing up the rear for the last few years in that division but have a new, offensive minded coach, a QB they like, and a few other pieces in place but maybe not enough right now to really be a serious contender. Maybe Mack's presence is good for one or two additional wins this year, maybe a couple next year. How does that effect their overall development now that they don't have first round choices for the next two years to help add to the pieces they are missing. Time will tell I guess

Same argument being had in two seperate threads. Time to let it go. Mack ain't here, better to focus on who is/who could be.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

From an article in the newsfeed from the Sacramento Bee:

"Lynch has said he made a competitive trade offer for Khalil Mack, who's the front-runner for Defensive Player of the Year with the Chicago Bears, but didn't want to risk too much draft capital in a deal."

I guess there is room for legitimate debate here. Lynch has stated more than once that he wants to build the team through the draft and selected free agents but not do it in a way that hamstrings them in terms of the cap. Obviously they have a lot of cap space now but are probably looking at a couple of their own guys, most noticeably Buckner, who they will have to deal with soon. How does adding a player like Mack alter that plan? Clearly he is a terrific player, I'm not sure the team could have ridden his talent to a better record once Jimmy G went down. It is pretty clear from their performance this year that they are probably more than one player away from being a serious contender, do you want to payout all of that money for two players who might win you a couple of more games a year on pure talent or do you want to build a stronger foundation of core players first. Bringing in someone like Mack makes a lot of sense under the second scenario, perhaps less so under the first. I think it will be interesting to see how Chicago does this year because it seems to me that they are in a kind of similar situation. They have been bringing up the rear for the last few years in that division but have a new, offensive minded coach, a QB they like, and a few other pieces in place but maybe not enough right now to really be a serious contender. Maybe Mack's presence is good for one or two additional wins this year, maybe a couple next year. How does that effect their overall development now that they don't have first round choices for the next two years to help add to the pieces they are missing. Time will tell I guess

Raiders are last in QB hits with just 16. Sure, the "one player" mentally is exactly why the Raiders are where they are and the Bears are in 1st place with the best defense in the league. And us?

That one player would be here for the same length of time as Garoppolo, Lynch and Shanahan.

At this point, let's just hope with our next two first rounders, we find a difference maker. I can't expect either pick to be in the running for offensive or defensive player of the year but we can hope, right?

Brick by brick...via the draft, that is.

Did Lynch do what was best for team or what was best for his job (retaining those draft picks)?

We'll find out soon.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49ers81:

From an article in the newsfeed from the Sacramento Bee:

"Lynch has said he made a competitive trade offer for Khalil Mack, who's the front-runner for Defensive Player of the Year with the Chicago Bears, but didn't want to risk too much draft capital in a deal."

I guess there is room for legitimate debate here. Lynch has stated more than once that he wants to build the team through the draft and selected free agents but not do it in a way that hamstrings them in terms of the cap. Obviously they have a lot of cap space now but are probably looking at a couple of their own guys, most noticeably Buckner, who they will have to deal with soon. How does adding a player like Mack alter that plan? Clearly he is a terrific player, I'm not sure the team could have ridden his talent to a better record once Jimmy G went down. It is pretty clear from their performance this year that they are probably more than one player away from being a serious contender, do you want to payout all of that money for two players who might win you a couple of more games a year on pure talent or do you want to build a stronger foundation of core players first. Bringing in someone like Mack makes a lot of sense under the second scenario, perhaps less so under the first. I think it will be interesting to see how Chicago does this year because it seems to me that they are in a kind of similar situation. They have been bringing up the rear for the last few years in that division but have a new, offensive minded coach, a QB they like, and a few other pieces in place but maybe not enough right now to really be a serious contender. Maybe Mack's presence is good for one or two additional wins this year, maybe a couple next year. How does that effect their overall development now that they don't have first round choices for the next two years to help add to the pieces they are missing. Time will tell I guess

Raiders are last in QB hits with just 16. Sure, the "one player" mentally is exactly why the Raiders are where they are and the Bears are in 1st place with the best defense in the league. And us?

That one player would be here for the same length of time as Garoppolo, Lynch and Shanahan.

At this point, let's just hope with our next two first rounders, we find a difference maker. I can't expect either pick to be in the running for offensive or defensive player of the year but we can hope, right?

Brick by brick...via the draft, that is.

Did Lynch do what was best for team or best for his job (retaining those draft picks)? We'll find out soon.

I think we've discussed this before, but you were never this critical of Baalke right?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Similar or the same? It was reported that only the Bears ACTUALLY offered two firsts and the Raiders still had to give up their own 2nd to be able to say, they got 2 1sts out of the deal.

Neither the Jets or Niners made the same and they were "finalists."

Also, any FO will play one team against the other in negotiations and give everyone a chance to 1-up the best offer.

Clearly, we did not make the best offer.

I've finally come around on this.

We clearly did not make the best offer and the other part of this that's not being discussed - we really didn't want to pay a defensive player as much as or more than our unproven QB.

This system for player value feels eerily familiar. Terms like "aggressively prudent" or "aggressive with parameters" just feels exactly like comments Baalke made over his tenure here.

Who's setting these parameters and why?

Baalke's claim was why pay big bucks to players in FA who never made a pro bowl or weren't all pros?

OK I can somewhat understand that sentiment but there WERE pro bowlers and all pros and defensive MVP's and YOUNG players and we still either never pursued them or our own parameters ensured we remained the bridesmaid.

Brick by brick? Your bricks are brittle and your foundation stinks, John.

There were pro bowlers and all pros available. We got 2 of them in free agency this year in Richard Sherman and Richburg. There's 32 teams.. and only a handful of these caliber players available.

They've been incredibly aggressive and have turned over this roster in a very short period. Every single position group has improved drastically from what we had in 2016. You guys are being ridiculous.