2019 Draft Talk (Draft Order in OP)

[Forge]

6 minutes ago, Chrissooner49er said:

And no, it is never a good sign when you agree with a Cohn. Disasters in print is what they are.

I don't hate on Cohn as much as some. Dude is definitely out there sometimes, and has some really bad hot takes, but I think that's because of his personality lol. He's not stupid from what I've read, he seems to understand what is going on and does have an okay eye, but I feel like he's massively biased. If he doesn't like something, he never seems to give credit for it. So if he hates McGlinchey and that pick, this year during OTA's I would suspect a lot of talk focusing on everything McGlinchey does wrong, and not a peep about how he pancakes someone at any given point or holds up well in one on one battles. I haven't seen him flat out lie or just not going what's on, my issues with him have always been more about what he chooses to write about and what he conveniently leaves out. And yes, he has some bad opinions and hot takes lol. 

[NJniners]

To me, the Edge rushers in this class is so deep that i think we could wait to the second round and get a star. The most important thing to me is getting David Montgomery (or Mike Weber). What a beast. Im also not a big believer in McKinnon to be honest. I think he'll do good, but is one of those dangerous specialty players instead of a pure #1 RB, kinda like the Percy Harvin of RBs.

[Forge]

26 minutes ago, NJniners said:

To me, the Edge rushers in this class is so deep that i think we could wait to the second round and get a star. The most important thing to me is getting David Montgomery (or Mike Weber). What a beast. Im also not a big believer in McKinnon to be honest. I think he'll do good, but is one of those dangerous specialty players instead of a pure #1 RB, kinda like the Percy Harvin of RBs.

You'd pass up an edge rusher to go running back? Really? 

[big9erfan]

4 hours ago, Chrissooner49er said:

Oh for the love of....! That horse is not only DEAD, it's roadkill. OLD roadkill. 

And no, it is never a good sign when you agree with a Cohn. Disasters in print is what they are.

Hey, I just read his post and so just saw the Grant article. I thought his coment about filling a hole they were about to create was funny. Even Grant can get a good one liner in every now and then.

Edited May 10, 2018 by big9erfan

[NinerNation21]

43 minutes ago, Forge said:

You'd pass up an edge rusher to go running back? Really? 

I agree with this. In today's NFL, EDGE impacts the game in a bigger way than a RB does. McKinnon may not dominate the world like his contract suggests, but he will a very dynamic threat that will be a staple in the niner's offense. 

[757-NINER]

On 4/30/2018 at 1:59 PM, N4L said:

Did we want them to sign a WR?? That was a positional group where most people on this forum felt we had 4 serviceable players. Most of us would have preferred to get a TE who was also a redzone threat. I get that Pettis scored a lot of TDs, but I'm not sure he is a 'redzone threat'. I'm not upset that we added a WR, I'm upset that we traded a high third to move up to take a WR when there were about 3 or 4 other WRs on the board that could have been comparable. That high third could have been used on an edge rusher. Pettis will probably be a very good player here, and I'm sure down the road ill be happy hes here, but hes walking into a crowded room so it may take two years before he becomes a starter. 

From every scouting report I have read, McG will probably stay on the right side even after Staley retires. The way OLs are constructed in today's NFL, RT is an equally as important position, so I don't have a problem with spending a first on a RT in a vacuum. Its a weak T class, so we made sure we got the one T we liked. It 

No one is doubting the Fred Warner pick. We obviously needed a LB, and we got a guy who can start now and possibly take someone else's job later. That was a good pick. We will see how Malcom Smith does. In Seattle, he was a good player, but he was surrounded by all-pros. That certainly makes a difference

The CB 'depth' we got are projects. Rather than just drafting a corner, we decided to draft a FS in the third round who wasn't invited to the combine to move him to corner. He very well may end up being a great player, but it will take time. He has the exact build we look for in our corners, so from a physical standpoint, its a great pick, but can he actually play corner? I hope so. I don't feel as though CB will be a need going into 2019, which is why I didn't list it on my 2019 needs. 

You know what would have made our corner play better? An edge rusher. Its not that I wanted them to draft a specific player, its the complete disregard of our most pressing need that has me worried. It was painfully obvious to everyone that we needed an edge player, at least someone to develop for the long run, but instead we take fliers on injured players or guys that will probably never see the roster? I just don't get it. That is probably the main reason I am feeling this way. 

An interesting thing I thought about last night: Last year, by the time Lynch was hired, a lot of the scouting leg work had been done by scouts that are no longer in the building. Tom Gamble was essentially running the show last year until about mid February. Lynch was brought in late in the process last year. From everything we can tell he is a 'team player' who I'm sure in his first year was going to defer some decisions to guys who have been scouting for a long time. It appears this year that shanahan and lynch both took a larger role in these decisions this year. That's why they don't get an automatic passing grade for this year because last year worked out so well. 

@Ninerholic I typically don't read anything Grant Cohn writes, but someone sent that to me and I think it fits with how I am feeling about this draft at the moment. I reserve the right to change my opinion if new information presents itself. Right now I am feeling a little underwhelmed with the overall HAUL. 

 

GO NINERS

Honestly, I didn't care much for our draft but not for the reasons you stated. You mentioned not drafting a edge rusher and I understand the premise there but this class was an absurdly weak class as far as pass-rushers. I liked maybe 3-4 guys total. And once they were off the board, I didn't really pay attention to be honest so I have no problem with Lynch bypassing the position all together. Don't just take an edge rusher because you need one. Draft a guy you really believe in and one you hope makes your roster better. If they felt as though none of those prospects were better than what they have currently, I'm fine with that. 

You also mentioned the Moore pick as being a 'project' pick. I guess you could call it that but drafting safeties and converting them CBs and vice versa is very common and is done routinely. We drafted another safety-turned-CB 'project' in 2011 when took Chris Culliver and it got a similar reaction from alot of the fanbase but it turned out to be quite the find. As someone who was high on Moore as a CB prospect from the get go, I was very happy with the pick. Maybe it was a round higher than I would have liked but chatter after the draft suggests Moore would not have made it out of the 3rd round so maybe Lynch is smarter than we thought. Not to mention the Reed pick is being looked at as a steal by alot of the media so I can confidently say we have added talent and competition to a group that was very thin before the draft. 

My issues with this draft was them sacrificing value in certain instances over getting 'their' guy. I'm all for getting guys that the coaching stuff wants and covets but at the end of the day, its the GM's name attached to the haul. The GM has to be the guy whose main focus is maximizing every pick to get as much value for the roster and franchise as possible. Im not so sure that did a great job of that for this draft.

[John232]

So bored, I'm genuinely thinking about starting to look at the 2019 edge guys. 

[NinerNation21]

7 hours ago, John232 said:

So bored, I'm genuinely thinking about starting to look at the 2019 edge guys. 

It sounds like this is going to be one of the best EDGE classes in recent years so you might not be bored for long!

[big9erfan]

SOunds like if we were picking at 9 next year there's a chance we good get a good one. Not sure what our chances are if we're picking in the 20's.

[oldman9er]

9 hours ago, big9erfan said:

SOunds like if we were picking at 9 next year there's a chance we good get a good one. Not sure what our chances are if we're picking in the 20's.

SF will be picking at #32, silly. If it truly is "one of the best EDGE classes", then we should have no real trouble securing a good EDGE player somewhere late in rd 1 that in other drafts.. would have been selected in the teens.  

[Forge]

11 hours ago, big9erfan said:

SOunds like if we were picking at 9 next year there's a chance we good get a good one. Not sure what our chances are if we're picking in the 20's.

My guess is that we pick somewhere between 10-15 in that expanse of mediocrity of where the 7-9 or 8-8 teams live. 

[NinerNation21]

58 minutes ago, Forge said:

My guess is that we pick somewhere between 10-15 in that expanse of mediocrity of where the 7-9 or 8-8 teams live. 

I'm hoping we pick somewhere in the 20's. That would mean we would have a 9-7 or 10-6 record and possibly a playoff spot.

[Forge]

Just now, NinerNation21 said:

I'm hoping we pick somewhere in the 20's. That would mean we would have a 9-7 or 10-6 record and possibly a playoff spot.

I said it before the draft and free agency, I just don't see it from a talent perspective, and neither free agency nor the draft did anything to change that belief. I think we are a pretty middle of the road team. Now, with some guys stepping up more than expected, that could improve (I'm looking at you, pass rushers). And I really wonder if Shanny's game planning isn't good for a win or two that I don't expect, but right now I don't see us close to being a playoff team. We are far below who I consider the top 4 (Minnesota, NO, Rams, Philly), so that would only leave 2 spots, and I see us a tick below some of the others that will be competing for that spot (always health dependent) and even a tick below one other "up and coming" team that was in a similar boat to us in Chicago (I think they are going to be pretty solid so long as Trubisky doesn't crap the bed). The lack of a pass could absolutely torpedo the season before it even gets going though, so that is going to be paramount. If we get more than I suspect we will, could very easily change, but I don't see us as a good team. An up and coming one, yes, but maybe a year or two early. Hoping for the best and making a surprise playoff run similar to 2011, but I'm not going to expect it. 

[big9erfan]

12 minutes ago, Forge said:

I said it before the draft and free agency, I just don't see it from a talent perspective, and neither free agency nor the draft did anything to change that belief. I think we are a pretty middle of the road team. Now, with some guys stepping up more than expected, that could improve (I'm looking at you, pass rushers). And I really wonder if Shanny's game planning isn't good for a win or two that I don't expect, but right now I don't see us close to being a playoff team. We are far below who I consider the top 4 (Minnesota, NO, Rams, Philly), so that would only leave 2 spots, and I see us a tick below some of the others that will be competing for that spot (always health dependent) and even a tick below one other "up and coming" team that was in a similar boat to us in Chicago (I think they are going to be pretty solid so long as Trubisky doesn't crap the bed). The lack of a pass could absolutely torpedo the season before it even gets going though, so that is going to be paramount. If we get more than I suspect we will, could very easily change, but I don't see us as a good team. An up and coming one, yes, but maybe a year or two early. Hoping for the best and making a surprise playoff run similar to 2011, but I'm not going to expect it. 

I have zero doubt that we'd have won at least as many games last year as you are projecting for this year - if only Garappolo had played for the full season. I think you are projecting a step backwards from what we would have done last year with JG as the full time QB. I just don't see us regressing. Last year I thought we'd win 5 or 6 and ended up with 6. Barring an injury to Jimmy I'm thinking 9 or 10 is realistic fo rthis year. 8 i s possible, but wouild be disappointing to me. 7 would be a HUGE disappointment.

[Forge]

12 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

I have zero doubt that we'd have won at least as many games last year as you are projecting for this year - if only Garappolo had played for the full season. I think you are projecting a step backwards from what we would have done last year with JG as the full time QB. I just don't see us regressing. Last year I thought we'd win 5 or 6 and ended up with 6. Barring an injury to Jimmy I'm thinking 9 or 10 is realistic fo rthis year. 8 i s possible, but wouild be disappointing to me. 7 would be a HUGE disappointment.

To the bolded...come on, man. I don't think that you can trumpet that. I'm pretty sure you (and others) were projecting that with Hoyer and Beathard and we were 1-10. Nobody was projecting for the Jimmy G trade, so let's not try and act like just because we hit that number those who were projecting that at the start of the season were somehow prescient.

This roster isn't that much better in my opinion, quite frankly and it wasn't that great last year.  And other teams get better too. We have no pass rush and that can absolutely torpedo the season. We will see. If the pass rush is better than projected, the team could make a little bit of a run. But if it's as bad as it looks on paper, it will stall any major improvement record wise. It's not necessarily a regression if we only win 7 games to me...we don't really have a ton of top end talent in important positions, and a ton of questions. Could just be we didn't improve as much as other teams (and again, I don't actually think 7 games won would be a regression anyway). There's a lot variance because there are a lot of questions that really aren't answerable at this point in time until we see them get on the field.