2026 Draft Grade

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
C.

Comments:

2. We needed a WR, and he has the traits, but firmly believe we had better options available. Stribling is similar, but not as good of a prospect as DK Metcalf (64 overall) was, making it hard to stomach that we used 33 overall -- I could be wrong, but felt a pick between 90-120 range was more appropriate for his level.

3. We made the right call getting a pass rusher before it was too late, and I liked Height.

3. Worst pick of this class in terms of value. Our system may be a nice fit, and if he has to play due to injury, I'm sure he'll be OK. I expect him to look good in pre-season, but the bottom line is: He is older, and will be RB4/5 -- using a 3rd rounder on that is absolutely absurd, no matter how "convicted" you are.

4. Halton was probably the best value pick. I had him as a Top 100 value. Good pass-rushing DT, met a need as none of our IDL were particularly good at that last year. Good add to the rotation IMO.

4. Carver Willis had some good and some not-so-good on tape, but overall was solid and par value here. The good thing is, that was all at OT, and at OG I think he'll be better. Has a chance to compete to start at LG by next year. This also pushes Colby to improve. We'll see who rises up.

4. Didn't get a chance to scout him, but for a fourth rounder, I see some good traits and I think he was worth the pick. Very curious if they have plans for him as a hybrid CB/FS. Not sure where his best fit is, but there's plenty of tools to develop as an outside CB. He's not the next Sherman, but maybe could be the next Riq Woolen with development.

5. I also liked Dugger as a chess piece small-school prospect who had tools to be something with development.

5. Did not watch Cruz Jr and don't have much to go off of other than seeing he has top tier athletic traits, but did have good film against Zion Young. That's meaningful. Evidence points to this being at least a par value pick for a developmental OL prospect.

Overall, mostly "par" values, and one slight good value, but two big, big, subpar values IMO make me feel like we could've had a lot better haul. Hence the C grade.

Overall I am with you, including the grade. One comment to the WR:
90-120 with his combination of size and speed (and run blocking)? No, i don't think so.

Edit:
Looked at three scouting reports, everyone was projecting him being a day two pick.
Reach? I give you that but not as catastrophic. We need a big receiver who fits the scheme and is able to push the safeties deep.

I gave it a solid C. They addressed all needs but reaching lowered it big time. At least no kicker/punter that would have lowered the grade a bit more.

I don't mind reaching (unless it's as brutal as with a kicker or RB Black).
At the end of the day, either he pans out or he won't. About 90% of the players picked after day one won't have much impact anyway.

Several are invested in this draft being a failure without letting time prove whether or not it was a success. If these players rise up and contribute, will those fans predicting the worst across the board ("F") own their lack of objectivity? We'll see.

D.. so much madness and disappointment from the 9ers In this years draft.

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
F

I shared this grade. But only because I wanted a high pick at OT. I didn't get it. True, Kyle did pick two of them. Which I believe may be a record. I just didn't see the team treating it as a position badly in need of an upgrade. As a former OT myself, I thought the investment was needed. But, when it comes right down to it, I am often wrong.

The 49ers have done a fairly good job at developing players drafted in later rounds into pretty good offensive linemen. A team just doesn't reach the playoffs year after year after year without this kind of development. This team is routinely in the playoff hunt. So, the "development" approach is working. It just isn't flashy.

I give it a C-

I don't hate the players we got. I hate how much we reached to get them and I'm annoyed we didn't bring in a legit safety to push the mediocre guys we have now.

Originally posted by mcwoot:

Originally posted by dj43:
Thank you for your assessment.

#3. Everyone is jumping on the lack of value. I get it. However, if he can prove to be the guy that finally gives CMC some time off, he will be worth it.

Didn't we draft that guy last year

Yes, we did. But he got hurt in TC. Then he got hurt again after recovering from that first surgery. Jury is still out on Jordan James. But I still have high hopes for him. Kyle chose to keep him on the bench during his rookie year. This could, understand that I used the word "could," pay off this upcoming season.

Originally posted by genus49:
I give it a C-

I don't hate the players we got. I hate how much we reached to get them and I'm annoyed we didn't bring in a legit safety to push the mediocre guys we have now.

You have a valid point. However, I believe a vastly improved pass rush will help those "mediocre guys" a great deal. It's amazing what a strong pass rush can do.

Does anyone ever go back to previous drafts and compare the grades they got immediately vs. what one would grade them now?

Like, this article from 2021 gave the Falcons an A+. What would this same guy grade that draft 5 years later?

(Same article gives SF a B+ for 2021, including an A for drafting Lance round 1).

Originally posted by captveg:
Does anyone ever go back to previous drafts and compare the grades they got immediately vs. what one would grade them now?

Like, this article from 2021 gave the Falcons an A+. What would this same guy grade that draft 5 years later?

(Same article gives SF a B+ for 2021, including an A for drafting Lance round 1).

I started looking at the same on the consensus. Here is warren sharps consensus best draft class in 2023 due to perceived value vs consensus:

Originally posted by captveg:
Does anyone ever go back to previous drafts and compare the grades they got immediately vs. what one would grade them now?

Like, this article from 2021 gave the Falcons an A+. What would this same guy grade that draft 5 years later?

(Same article gives SF a B+ for 2021, including an A for drafting Lance round 1).

Answer to your question. Yes. A lot of writers go back and look at drafts after 2 or 3 seasons.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by captveg:
Does anyone ever go back to previous drafts and compare the grades they got immediately vs. what one would grade them now?

Like, this article from 2021 gave the Falcons an A+. What would this same guy grade that draft 5 years later?

(Same article gives SF a B+ for 2021, including an A for drafting Lance round 1).

Answer to your question. Yes. A lot of writers go back and look at drafts after 2 or 3 seasons.

Seems a bit premature after 2-3 seasons when the best drafts have guys that play 5-7 seasons or more.

With these 2-3 season reviews do they explicitly address their original grades and where they were right/wrong? Or do they simply grade the draft again without that contrast of their prior opinion?

Shouldn't of used AI.

Originally posted by captveg:
Does anyone ever go back to previous drafts and compare the grades they got immediately vs. what one would grade them now?

Like, this article from 2021 gave the Falcons an A+. What would this same guy grade that draft 5 years later?

(Same article gives SF a B+ for 2021, including an A for drafting Lance round 1).

This is a good call out. Too many times in recent memory we've overly praised a draft only for it to turn out to be terrible in the end. While I wasn't too impressed with the draft this year, but I'm not going to trash it. For me, more of a wait and see, check back at the end of the season.