49ers select Nick Martin-LB-Oklahoma State with the 75th pick in the 2025 NFL Draft

Originally posted by Scoots:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
No it's still a reach because you're saying he's the 75th best player in the draft, not "hey one other team might like him"

that's like telling me Moody was worth the 100th pick because the Pats might take him in the 4th rd.

So Joe Montana was a reach and the 49ers should not have drafted him. Okay.

Was Montana not regarded as a 3rd rd talent? Are we only gonna use outliers to try and push a narrative that you said you don't even agree with?

again go look at that reach list and tell me who worked out for us

I feel like Martin being selected early was based off his performance last year. Had he not gotten injured this season and put up the similar stats to last year. This reach conversation wouldn't be talked about.
But if we want to talk about 49ers reaching. I blame Kyle for a lot of those stupid picks.

Originally posted by Scoots:
Sure, but you said "Yea but SF is leading the league in this department." ... not "Yea but SF is leading the league in this department in the first 3 rounds."

If they add in the other 4 rounds I wonder how it changes.

They're leading the league in reaching at the most important picks in a draft.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
They're leading the league in reaching at the most important picks in a draft.

Are they "leading" in just the most important pick in the draft ... the first round?

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Was Montana not regarded as a 3rd rd talent? Are we only gonna use outliers to try and push a narrative that you said you don't even agree with?

again go look at that reach list and tell me who worked out for us

The 3rd was considered very early for Montana. Supposedly he had a 5th round "value".

Originally posted by Scoots:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
They're leading the league in reaching at the most important picks in a draft.

Are they "leading" in just the most important pick in the draft ... the first round?

First 3 rds it's all there for you to read…you can look at our drafts top to bottom and it's full of reaches.

again tell me where it worked out? You still can't answer that question

Originally posted by NYniner85:
First 3 rds it's all there for you to read…you can look at our drafts top to bottom and it's full of reaches.

again tell me where it worked out? You still can't answer that question

So, you don't know. That's okay.

That question isn't for me, it's for someone else. I'm not willing to spend the time to even look.

Originally posted by Scoots:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Was Montana not regarded as a 3rd rd talent? Are we only gonna use outliers to try and push a narrative that you said you don't even agree with?

again go look at that reach list and tell me who worked out for us

The 3rd was considered very early for Montana. Supposedly he had a 5th round "value".

First off I don't believe you, secondly using an outlier doesn't make it correct…not when you look at the overwhelming data ESPECIALLY this regime's moves.

again show me the proof that reaching as much as we have has been the correct thing to do? Where's the talent? You continue to dodge that and we all know why. So quite arguing with me about something you know has been bad.

Originally posted by Scoots:
The 3rd was considered very early for Montana. Supposedly he had a 5th round "value".

IIRC the 5th round value was "at most" ... we later learned the Bears said they had a 1st round grade on him and almost took him at 66 but decided they could wait one more round to get him.

So ... was he "overdrafted" or not by your definition?

Originally posted by NYniner85:
First off I don't believe you, secondly using an outlier doesn't make it correct…not when you look at the overwhelming data ESPECIALLY this regime's moves.

again show me the proof that reaching as much as we have has been the correct thing to do? Where's the talent? You continue to dodge that and we all know why. So quite arguing with me about something you know has been bad.

I don't have any reason to prove an argument I'm not making. I'll see if I can find proof Montana was not considered a value in the 3rd.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
First off I don't believe you, secondly using an outlier doesn't make it correct…not when you look at the overwhelming data ESPECIALLY this regime's moves.

again show me the proof that reaching as much as we have has been the correct thing to do? Where's the talent? You continue to dodge that and we all know why. So quite arguing with me about something you know has been bad.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/372122-the-tremendous-risk-of-drafting-a-quarterback-in-the-first-round

Not the best since it's a 2018 BR article, but it does say Walsh was criticized and Montana and Fifth round "tops" from a scout.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by scooterhd:
Because it just takes 1 team to similarly value him, and then its not a reach... Wouldnt be shocked if he was LB3 on our board.

No it's still a reach because you're saying he's the 75th best player in the draft, not "hey one other team might like him"

that's like telling me Moody was worth the 100th pick because the Pats might take him in the 4th rd.

When you draft a player 75, they are probably 60th on your board. Occasionally, much higher. Youve downgraded non scheme fits. Other teams have drafted players you ranked lower. You downgrade in real time players that overlap players you've already drafted.

When you draft a player, you absolutely consider who else might like that player. Who has capital to move ahead? Do we need to move up? Can we risk moving back for this player? And you consider the depth of the position. We grade player DT-A, DT-B, DT-C, and DT-D similarly and feel like they can fill the role we need on our roster. Lets wait on that position for another round and target another position of need with scarcity.

Since, you brought up Moody, I think he was an absolute reach and have said so many times. You'll say thats a trend of 49ers reaching so you can complain without analyzing all other picks. I'll say it shows discernment and expressing criticism when applicable. Latu was an even worse pick, but to be fair, the guys I would have taken instead havent exactly panned out either. That wasnt a great class, and ironically had we taken the one guy that did pan out at #100 in Puka Nacua, youd be complaining about that reach.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
First off I don't believe you, secondly using an outlier doesn't make it correct…not when you look at the overwhelming data ESPECIALLY this regime's moves.

again show me the proof that reaching as much as we have has been the correct thing to do? Where's the talent? You continue to dodge that and we all know why. So quite arguing with me about something you know has been bad.

https://www.sports-king.com/joe-montana-third-round-1979-draft-criticism-3493/

Originally posted by Scoots:
I don't have any reason to prove an argument I'm not making. I'll see if I can find proof Montana was not considered a value in the 3rd.

And even if he was a "reach" that is NOT the norm….I have no idea where you're even trying to go with this. We reach A LOT most of those reaches do not work out. Period.

Originally posted by scooterhd:
When you draft a player 75, they are probably 60th on your board. Occasionally, much higher. Youve downgraded non scheme fits. Other teams have drafted players you ranked lower. You downgrade in real time players that overlap players you've already drafted.

When you draft a player, you absolutely consider who else might like that player. Who has capital to move ahead? Do we need to move up? Can we risk moving back for this player? And you consider the depth of the position. We grade player DT-A, DT-B, DT-C, and DT-D similarly and feel like they can fill the role we need on our roster. Lets wait on that position for another round and target another position of need with scarcity.

Since, you brought up Moody, I think he was an absolute reach and have said so many times. You'll say thats a trend of 49ers reaching so you can complain without analyzing all other picks. I'll say it shows discernment and expressing criticism when applicable. Latu was an even worse pick, but to be fair, the guys I would have taken instead havent exactly panned out either. That wasnt a great class, and ironically had we taken the one guy that did pan out at #100 in Puka Nacua, youd be complaining about that reach.

Look at the players they reached on (top 20)

please tell me which one proves my point incorrect

instead of deflecting with outliers. Focus on what SF did. Please tell me where it was amazing. You can't and continue to deflect

I mean SF could have taken Derius Davis instead of Moody all the same. He was a massive reach for LA (pick 125) all the same. So for every Puka there's 50 Derius Davis' reaching at least for us has not proven to be a recipe for success. Try to spin that whatever way you want…you'd be wrong.