Jump to content

Draft General (News, Media Mocks, Big Boards, Rumors)


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, goldfishwars said:

 

Give me all that Lance and Fields betting. Thats just crazy value. Mac could be the pick, but there's not enough there that makes me think that the odds should be that skewed. This reminds me a lot of when the 9ers were the heavy betting favorite on bovada for Matt Stafford. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BowlesDawgDX said:

I find this interesting. Has anyone seen a list of who was invited/going?

Aware I could google it, just curious if someone has already posted it here

I still think Barmore to the Cards at 16 would be a really nice fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Forge said:

They aren't doing anything. They're not the one putting this stuff out there as far as I know. This is all stuff from outside the organization (thus far). That's what I've been waiting for, just one person to quote someone within the organization or some sort of source who would know. Hell, even just Mac Jones' agent. Not to say that they wouldn't do this; as I have mentioned elsewhere, they did this with Williams in 2019. 

Keep trying to talk yourself out of Mac not being the pick.  McGlinchey all over again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Keep trying to talk yourself out of Mac not being the pick.  McGlinchey all over again.

As i mentioned in the other thread, has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting mac jones or talking myself out of anything. nobody has put anything out from the 49ers, and given that other reports say that the 9ers haven't told anyone in the building, I don't think anyone "knows" anything. Pauline just said yesterday "hold the fort on the Mac Jones to 9ers thing, I'm hearing differently".   Peter King has only said that all guys are still on the table. Breer has said that nobody knows. Others are quoting stuff from other teams openly and using that as a reliable indicator of what Shanny may be doing. That seems....ambitious...

I have also openly acknowledged multiple times that I would wait  until Peter King (and Albert Breer) says in the week of the draft because King in particular has shown some reliability in that regard (McG was divulged 3 days before the draft by Peter King, not 4 weeks before the draft, and he also noted Kinlaw about a week beforehand last year). If a week before the draft King is saying Mac, then I think it's a strong, strong chance that it's Mac. I'm really just looking for reliability and I don't think that we have entered that yet (The schefty thing would be the closest, but he said he's hearing it's Mac but everyone is and regurgitating the same stuff...i'm not sure where they are actually getting it from).  It's not about pushing back against Mac pick, it's about putting trust in what reports are coming out. So far the closest source I have seen to the 9ers is Matt Miller talking to "a former 49ers employee". 

 I really don't care if the pick is Mac Jones. He'll be fine with Shanny, but I'll get my entertainment out of either way (as the 9er forum will tell you, I have embraced the entertainment value of this and I have my phasers set to kill on the twitter circuit for all those fools lol). I think it would be super dumb, but I don't think it puts the niners in a hole or anything. Just tells me that Shanny would rather be the star and play QB than take the talent who may encroach on his own success. But he'd still likely be nominally successful during the rookie deal. They went up and took their shot which is all I wanted them to do...I can hardly blame them for simply being more incompetent at QB evaluation then me :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Forge said:

As i mentioned in the other thread, has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting mac jones or talking myself out of anything. nobody has put anything out from the 49ers, and given that other reports say that the 9ers haven't told anyone in the building, I don't think anyone "knows" anything. Pauline just said yesterday "hold the fort on the Mac Jones to 9ers thing, I'm hearing differently".   Peter King has only said that all guys are still on the table. Breer has said that nobody knows. Others are quoting stuff from other teams openly and using that as a reliable indicator of what Shanny may be doing. That seems....ambitious...

I'm talking about the dots that have connected Mac-to-SF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I'm talking about the dots that have connected Mac-to-SF.

What dots? 

I mean, I can connect more dots to Fields & SF in terms of personal connections and whatnot.

Or are you just talking about the pure quantity of reports as the dots? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Dan Orlovsky and Shefter are being used as unwitting pawns in San Francisco's game of 4D chess. Justin Fields' work ethic being questioned is hilarious, regardless of what you think of him as a prospect. He played hurt (3 times), had an impeccable reputation at OSU, and Shefter leaking things and now we see some backpedaling on the Mac front makes me believe that this is all a ploy this far from the draft. I don't think that knowing a month out the Top 3 picks is generally true.

JMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

I believe that Dan Orlovsky and Shefter are being used as unwitting pawns in San Francisco's game of 4D chess. Justin Fields' work ethic being questioned is hilarious, regardless of what you think of him as a prospect. He played hurt (3 times), had an impeccable reputation at OSU, and Shefter leaking things and now we see some backpedaling on the Mac front makes me believe that this is all a ploy this far from the draft. I don't think that knowing a month out the Top 3 picks is generally true.

JMHO

The thing is, I just don't know. I don't think anyone knows, which is my problem. I mentioned to Buzz that there's a good chance that I'm more sensitive to it this year and really digging in because it's my team (obviously I'm not questioning every report of every other team that comes out lol).

I think it's Fields because I think he makes the most amount of sense to me. That's based off a lot of things, not the least of which comes directly from Shanny right after the trade was made: "If you were to draw it up, you'd take the biggest, strongest, fastest guy who's also the best from the pocket". I simply do not understand how you're talking about Mac Jones there when Justin Fields is a pocket passer who also happens to be the most athletic. But I can certainly paint a logical train of thought to Mac for the 49ers. Like I said...if you're a guy that doesn't want a star QB encroaching on your own stardom, you want to be "the man", I can totally see how you're picking Jones here. 

Casserly polled 23 teams and roughly 1/6 of them had Mac as #3 QB. If I said 5 teams had Mac #3 and asked people to create a list of teams that had Mac at #3, I'd pretty much lock it in that 95% of those lists featured the 9ers. So it's 100% reasonable that Mac Jones is a selection here. I just don't think anyone knows. You see a lot of reports about people who have no idea what the 9ers are doing just talking about what they think that they are going to do. People like MM saying that he's putting faith in Chris Simms. Dan Patrick quoting "Other QB needy teams in the draft" as his source. Its just a weird thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Forge said:

What dots? 

I mean, I can connect more dots to Fields & SF in terms of personal connections and whatnot.

Or are you just talking about the pure quantity of reports as the dots? 

I mentioned it in the Niners forum the other day.  The first real "QB rumor" was that the Panthers were in love with Mac Jones, and would take him at 8.  San Francisco was picking at 12, which meant they wouldn't get that opportunity to select Mac at 12 if Carolina was picking ahead of them.  So San Francisco traded up to 3 to ensure they got their QB, which seems likely to see Trevor Lawrence and Zach Wilson go 1 and 2 respectively.  And then 10 days later, Carolina effectively takes themselves out of the QB market with the Sam Darnold trade.  So either Carolina had a QB3 who they LOVED, but are now going to miss out on OR they legitimately like Darnold better.  Seems to me the former is the more likely possibility.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CWood21 said:

I mentioned it in the Niners forum the other day.  The first real "QB rumor" was that the Panthers were in love with Mac Jones, and would take him at 8.  San Francisco was picking at 12, which meant they wouldn't get that opportunity to select Mac at 12 if Carolina was picking ahead of them.  So San Francisco traded up to 3 to ensure they got their QB, which seems likely to see Trevor Lawrence and Zach Wilson go 1 and 2 respectively.  And then 10 days later, Carolina effectively takes themselves out of the QB market with the Sam Darnold trade.  So either Carolina had a QB3 who they LOVED, but are now going to miss out on OR they legitimately like Darnold better.  Seems to me the former is the more likely possibility.

I mean the Carolina thing was from Tannenbaum who has been particularly brutal lately (he was on 49ers talk and it was really bad lol). Josh Norris said that Carolina may not have liked any of the QBs after Wilson / Lawrence back at the end of March. Schefter also said that the Panthers and Jets had been talking for weeks, which could put the discussions ahead of when the 49ers traded up.

Not ruling out the possibility of what you're saying but again, it requires a number of leaps and information that we simply do not have. I get the connection, don't discount the possibility.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forge said:

Give me all that Lance and Fields betting. Thats just crazy value. Mac could be the pick, but there's not enough there that makes me think that the odds should be that skewed. This reminds me a lot of when the 9ers were the heavy betting favorite on bovada for Matt Stafford. 

How can it be great value on Lance and Fields? As a gambler I looked at it exactly the opposite...there is no chance that those guys can be so tightly bunched at +250 and +300. If it's not Mac Jones then far more likely than not the 49ers have isolated on either Fields or Lance. It would be great value on one of them, and horrendous value on the other. But since the sportsbook has no clue they throw them up there at near parallel odds, to tempt the refuse-to-believe-Mac Jones group into making sucker bets on both Lance and Fields.

And they truly would be sucker bets. Pathetic value. If Mac Jones is -200 then the return on the Field (not Fields) should be positive, like +150 or +160. But taking Lance and Fields is not positive. You are giving a price. It comes out slightly less than even money. Let's say you wager $100 on both Lance and Fields. That would be $200 invested. Meanwhile, if the pick is Fields (+250) you get back $350 and if Lance (+300) is the pick you get back $400. See what I mean? You are giving a price. It is a classic example of non-gamblers not having a clue what they are doing, and grinding themselves out via inept value. The fans who insisted Chris Grier got decent value likewise didn't understand the math or the situational aspects. Hey, we got back more than we had so it must be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Awsi Dooger said:

How can it be great value on Lance and Fields? As a gambler I looked at it exactly the opposite...there is no chance that those guys can be so tightly bunched at +250 and +300. If it's not Mac Jones then far more likely than not the 49ers have isolated on either Fields or Lance. It would be great value on one of them, and horrendous value on the other. But since the sportsbook has no clue they throw them up there at near parallel odds, to tempt the refuse-to-believe-Mac Jones group into making sucker bets on both Lance and Fields.

And they truly would be sucker bets. Pathetic value. If Mac Jones is -200 then the return on the Field (not Fields) should be positive, like +150 or +160. But taking Lance and Fields is not positive. You are giving a price. It comes out slightly less than even money. Let's say you wager $100 on both Lance and Fields. That would be $200 invested. Meanwhile, if the pick is Fields (+250) you get back $350 and if Lance (+300) is the pick you get back $400. See what I mean? You are giving a price. It is a classic example of non-gamblers not having a clue what they are doing, and grinding themselves out via inept value. The fans who insisted Chris Grier got decent value likewise didn't understand the math or the situational aspects. Hey, we got back more than we had so it must be great.

I'm not saying bet both, sorry if that was unclear.  I'm basically saying I'd bet against Mac Jones. My personal choice would be fields as I view him as the most likely. I'll take fields at that all day. But some still like Lance as the pick and if that's the case I have no qualms of them taking him at those numbers either.

It's something that @N4L and I have been discussing. I know he feels the same on the fields bet as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...