Niners traded up for Brandon Aiyuk at 25 WR

[Ronnie's Pinky]

37 minutes ago, Forge said:

So we definitely knew fairly early on we were going to go get Aiyuk.  Lynch's wife called Edwards' wife around pick 20 lol

"Somewhere around the 20th pick" seems unlikely, considering that the Eagles and Vikings picked at #21 and #22, and both ended up taking a receiver. According to Kyle, once the Eagles took Reagor, he and Lynch started working to trade up for Aiyuk. This is probably a combination of sloppy reporting, and maybe Herm's wife not really paying attention to the draft all that much.

[Ronnie's Pinky]

2 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

They definitely had a good idea or knew that Staley wasn't returning for weeks. This didn't catch anyone off guard in the organization.

That doesn't appear to be the case, at least not according to John Lynch. Here's what he said about it:

Quote

 

"The reality on that deal, we didn't really have the conversation with Joe until the week of the draft," Lynch said. "Because I think Joe was trying to give himself and his body time. Joe wanted to keep playing, his body simply didn't allow for it. We felt like the quarantine, everything going on was his best friend and our best friend. Just give him time as he gets away from the season, maybe his body comes around.

"Finally, draft week, Joe picked up the phone and said 'guys, I can't do this, I've got to make a decision for my family.' So that gave us, it was very opportune that Trent Williams was sitting out there. We quickly interjected ourself in that conversation. I worked hard with Ron Rivera to try to get it done and we did as an organization, and fortunately we were able to do it.

"We'll miss Joe. Joe's been a huge part of this franchise. But to come up with a guy like Trent Williams at that late date was a godsend for us."

 

The article is here: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001112036/article/lynch-trade-for-trent-williams-cherry-on-top-of-draft

Now, it's always possible Lynch is lying about the timing of this, but I see no point in a post-facto smokescreen. I'll take his word for it that they thought Joe was coming back until the week of the draft.

[Uncle_Rico]

6 hours ago, Uncle_Rico said:

I find the trade up discussion fascinating. 

For those of you AGAINST the trade up, I’m curious your stance on this scenario. 

- You’re the Niners at 31. You’ve drafted Kinlaw at 14 and gained an extra 4th in the process.
- The #2 WR on your personal board (CeeDee/Jeudy/ Ruggs/Jefferson/Reagor/whoever) is falling in the draft.

- You have trusted intel he will not last til pick 31

- In order to move up you have to trade you’re recently acquired 4th and your 5th rounders

As GM would you guys (757/Y2/Forge/whoever else) make the trade up for Jeudy/Lamb/Ruggs/whoever you have #2)?

For me I had CeeDee #1 and Jeudy #2.
In this scenario I personally would have traded up in a heartbeat to get Jeudy. 

Still curious if anyone has a take on this.

I feel like there's a difference between people being against the trade up and people being against the player traded up for.

[Forge]

27 minutes ago, Uncle_Rico said:

Still curious if anyone has a take on this.

I feel like there's a difference between people being against the trade up and people being against the player traded up for.

Always player specific for me with regards to the valuation of a prospect, depth of the class, etc. Always multiple factors in play. 

I'm not opposed to trade ups as a rule. I supported the trade up for Foster. I would have been okay the Time we traded up for Garnett had we traded up for someone else lol. 

 

[Ronnie's Pinky]

10 minutes ago, Forge said:

Always player specific for me with regards to the valuation of a prospect, depth of the class, etc. Always multiple factors in play. 

I'm not opposed to trade ups as a rule. I supported the trade up for Foster. I would have been okay the Time we traded up for Garnett had we traded up for someone else lol.

So, when you object to a draft pick that the front office makes, you do so because you think your understanding of player valuation/scheme fit/long-term finances/etc. are simply better than theirs? Interesting.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're also a bunch of amateurs debating on a message board for a reason.

[Forge]

52 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

So, when you object to a draft pick that the front office makes, you do so because you think your understanding of player valuation/scheme fit/long-term finances/etc. are simply better than theirs? Interesting.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but we're also a bunch of amateurs debating on a message board for a reason.

What else would it be? For me, it's silly to be anything else. If i didn't do the leg work and research to formulate an opinion, I wouldn't care. 

If the answer is always "well, they know better than me, I'll just agree with whatever they say / do", why does this place exist? The only topics that would exist would be game day threads. Throw opinions out, who cares. Just shut up and agree with the FO. This place seriously ceases to exist. 

 The second paragraph is my favorite thing for people to say on message boards as a  way to dimish the people who do serious work in this (some of whom have also used it to launch success in sports, but hey, just amateurs on a message board). It's extremely insulting. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, I dunno. Comes across that way though, just fyi. It's not like some of these "amateurs"  don't have better success than some front office personnel guys or can't evaluate just as well. If that's what I am dealing with, at least I know not to bother in the future. Thank you for the illumination. 

 

[Ronnie's Pinky]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

If the answer is always "well, they know better than me, I'll just agree with whatever they say / do", why does this place exist? The only topics that would exist would be game day threads. Throw opinions out, who cares. Just shut up and agree with the FO. This place seriously ceases to exist. 

Hey, nice straw man!

Quote

The second paragraph is my favorite thing for people to say on message boards as a  way to dimish the people who do serious work in this (some of whom have also used it to launch success in sports, but hey, just amateurs on a message board). It's extremely insulting. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, I dunno. Comes across that way though, just fyi. It's not like some of these "amateurs"  don't have better success than some front office personnel guys or can't evaluate just as well. If that's what I am dealing with, at least I know not to bother in the future. Thank you for the illumination. 

So you are insulted for being called an amateur...something you quite literally are by virtue of the fact that no one pays you for your work? I think you might have a little too much personal investment in this.

[Forge]

36 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Hey, nice straw man!

You opened that door, not me. My comment was merely a  supplement to what I had previously disclosed before. But nice try. Especially by avoiding the initial answer all together lol. Super smooth. 

36 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

So you are insulted for being called an amateur...something you quite literally are by virtue of the fact that no one pays you for your work? I think you might have a little too much personal investment in this.

I am insulted by the notion that you appear to be suggesting that because people are amateurs, that their opinions are somehow devalued or less worthwhile. It's not the phrase amateurs that I have an issue with. It's the idea of, "who cares what you think, you're just a dude on a message board", or, "you don't know what you're talking about because you're just an amateur on a message board". 

I don't know if that's how you meant it, but given the fact that I openly admitted that in the original post (thus giving you an opportunity to clarify the position like I clarified mine in the last paragraph), and instead of correcting it or addressing it you chose to address/ attack me personally about emotional investment, I think I have my answer lol

But yeah, have a good idea of what I'm dealing with here now, so we are done as you have ceased to be worth my time or effort in response. 

Good luck to you in your future endeavors. Please feel free to respond if you take umbrage with my characterization of you in this post. I don't want you to feel as though I attacked and took off, I just won't respond. The length of this conversation is way out of proportion to my interest in it or the involved parties. 

[N4L]

1 hour ago, Uncle_Rico said:

Still curious if anyone has a take on this.

I feel like there's a difference between people being against the trade up and people being against the player traded up for.

This is a great point. If we traded up for cee Dee everyone would love the trade, because he was someone they wanted at #13 so getting him at 25 is "great value" and would therefore somehow make the trade up "less expensive"

So it absolutely has to do with the player and not the trade itself. It's why teams give up so much for QBs. They are so valuable that it makes economic sense to trade more capital for them 

I wasn't a huge fan of the trade up but it shouldn't be used for future evaluations of the player. The capital spent is a sunk cost, we were going to have to spend a frp on him regardless 

So either way, aiyuk will have to prove himself in the league or it will reflect very poorly on both the trade up and the player picked, which ultimately come down to lynch and Shanahan.  That's the name of the game though. 

[Forge]

4 minutes ago, N4L said:

This is a great point. If we traded up for cee Dee everyone would love the trade, because he was someone they wanted at #13 so getting him at 25 is "great value" and would therefore somehow make the trade up "less expensive"

So it absolutely has to do with the player and not the trade itself. It's why teams give up so much for QBs. They are so valuable that it makes economic sense to trade more capital for them 

I wasn't a huge fan of the trade up but it shouldn't be used for future evaluations of the player. The capital spent is a sunk cost, we were going to have to spend a frp on him regardless 

So either way, aiyuk will have to prove himself in the league or it will reflect very poorly on both the trade up and the player picked, which ultimately come down to lynch and Shanahan.  That's the name of the game though. 

And ultimately, nobody cares. It's a talking point now because its a current topic. We have fun with it during are you smarter than, but otherwise it just really isn't all that important long term. 

And to the first two paragraphs...100%..

 

[Uncle_Rico]

1 minute ago, N4L said:

This is a great point. If we traded up for cee Dee everyone would love the trade, because he was someone they wanted at #13 so getting him at 25 is "great value" and would therefore somehow make the trade up "less expensive"

So it absolutely has to do with the player and not the trade itself. It's why teams give up so much for QBs. They are so valuable that it makes economic sense to trade more capital for them 

I wasn't a huge fan of the trade up but it shouldn't be used for future evaluations of the player. The capital spent is a sunk cost, we were going to have to spend a frp on him regardless 

So either way, aiyuk will have to prove himself in the league or it will reflect very poorly on both the trade up and the player picked, which ultimately come down to lynch and Shanahan.  That's the name of the game though. 

Exactly. 

My point is some people are saying "I hate the trade up" when they mean "I hate the trade up for Aiyuk"

Had it been for CeeDee Lamb/Jerry Jeudy/or Henry Ruggs I think Lynch and Shanahan would have been universally praised. 

So the issue is not about giving up 31 + 4th + 5th for 25, the issue is that Shanahan had Aiyuk as his #1/#2 WR on his board. 

Or put another way an issue with Shanahan's evaluation vs an issue with trade value.

[Forge]

Just now, Uncle_Rico said:

Exactly. 

My point is some people are saying "I hate the trade up" when they mean "I hate the trade up for Aiyuk"

Had it been for CeeDee Lamb/Jerry Jeudy/or Henry Ruggs I think Lynch and Shanahan would have been universally praised. 

So the issue is not about giving up 31 + 4th + 5th for 25, the issue is that Shanahan had Aiyuk as his #1/#2 WR on his board. 

Or put another way an issue with Shanahan's evaluation vs an issue with trade value.

Yes. Absolutely. There are some minor additional nuances that come into play sometimes when evaluating a specific trade up for me, but it's really hard to get just outclassed in the actual trade portion of it. 

As @N4L brought up last night and I broke down in value,  you look at the trades made, we ended to with good value when you consider that the culmination of moves resulted in a 3rd/4th value on Breida. When zooming out like that, it was a change in opinion for me from the first night where I actually just had a problem with the board management. So if you're not upset with the cost, it's all about the valuation of the player and whether the situation and player warranted giving up the additional assets. 

 

[J-ALL-DAY]

5 hours ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

That doesn't appear to be the case, at least not according to John Lynch. Here's what he said about it:

The article is here: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001112036/article/lynch-trade-for-trent-williams-cherry-on-top-of-draft

Now, it's always possible Lynch is lying about the timing of this, but I see no point in a post-facto smokescreen. I'll take his word for it that they thought Joe was coming back until the week of the draft.

Oh come on, you think McGlinchey saying he had an idea a few weeks ago that Joe was done but Lynch only knew on Monday after their morning presser? You think they went throug the entire draft process thinking Staley was going to return and then got completely thrown off when he told them he was retiring? Lynch uses his words very carefully and made sure to mention it was only after Monday's presser that Staley told them he was retiring… After telling the press earlier that day that Staley will be returning. 

[y2lamanaki]

3 hours ago, Uncle_Rico said:

Exactly. 

My point is some people are saying "I hate the trade up" when they mean "I hate the trade up for Aiyuk"

Had it been for CeeDee Lamb/Jerry Jeudy/or Henry Ruggs I think Lynch and Shanahan would have been universally praised. 

So the issue is not about giving up 31 + 4th + 5th for 25, the issue is that Shanahan had Aiyuk as his #1/#2 WR on his board. 

Or put another way an issue with Shanahan's evaluation vs an issue with trade value.

Sort of. I'd adjust it further to suggest that's it's Shanahan/Lynch's evaluations clouding their picture of every other team's evaluations that's really my issue. There's that report about the Dolphins that I don't buy that they wanted Aiyuk at #26. And I don't buy it, because otherwise, the only other explanation for why they don't have a single receiver among their draft class was that they were too depressed after missing out on Aiyuk that they just ignored the position through their last nine picks.

You had the Vikings originally at pick #25 - they had just taken Jefferson. The Seahawks didn't need a receiver and didn't take one until the 6th. Everyone knew the Ravens needed a linebacker and would look that way, and they didn't pick up a WR until their 4th pick (late 3rd). The Titans didn't have a need for WR and didn't draft one. And the Packers didn't need a WR and didn't draft a WR. While the Colts took a WR at the bottom of the 2nd, you're not overly concerned about them jumping you for a prospect given that you are well enough aware that they are missing draft picks. And this is true - the Bengals, who also took a WR - the last time they traded up in the first 3 rounds was in 2002 when they traded an extra 5th to move up 6 spots in the 3rd round. The last time they traded up in the first round was in 1995 for Ki-Jana Carter. They just don't do it. The Bengals also were not a threat. 

So you have somebody who valued a WR, supposedly as #1, maybe #2 on his board - something that clearly didn't match the views of the five teams to take a WR before us, AND then traded up for fear of losing out on a prospect where it's highly suspect any other team would actually take him before #31. 

It's not just as simple saying "I hate the trade up" or "I hate the trade up for Aiyuk" - it's "I hate this very specific trade that happened in these very specific circumstances, and it's a seemingly common trend for our front office making me feel like this could just be a specific weakness/blind spot for them that they aren't going to fix." It's a lot more nuanced than what's being proposed as the contention.

For instance - if the beginning of the draft goes a little weirder, there are certain scenarios where this specific trade up for Aiyuk would make a lot more sense. For instance, if instead of Becton, the Jets take Lamb at #11, and then at #17, the Cowboys take Justin Jefferson. When #21 sends Reagor to Philly you're probably sweating out #22 as you wouldn't have the ammo. But say Minnesota goes Gladney at #22 (they took him at #31) without Jefferson on the board. Now you have a situation where at #25, there's a WR-needy team that just traded away Diggs that you know you might need to jump. I don't know if the Vikings would still make the trade for #25 so you might need to go a spot higher if it's possible. But in THAT scenario, a trade-up makes a lot of sense, and a trade-up specifically for Aiyuk is highly defensible.

In the world and scenario in which it happened - it just doesn't make much sense. It shows a poor understanding of all of the elements of scouting - which isn't a matter of knowing only what you need to do, but knowing what every other team needs to do as well.

[757-NINER]

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

Sort of. I'd adjust it further to suggest that's it's Shanahan/Lynch's evaluations clouding their picture of every other team's evaluations that's really my issue. There's that report about the Dolphins that I don't buy that they wanted Aiyuk at #26. And I don't buy it, because otherwise, the only other explanation for why they don't have a single receiver among their draft class was that they were too depressed after missing out on Aiyuk that they just ignored the position through their last nine picks.

You had the Vikings originally at pick #25 - they had just taken Jefferson. The Seahawks didn't need a receiver and didn't take one until the 6th. Everyone knew the Ravens needed a linebacker and would look that way, and they didn't pick up a WR until their 4th pick (late 3rd). The Titans didn't have a need for WR and didn't draft one. And the Packers didn't need a WR and didn't draft a WR. While the Colts took a WR at the bottom of the 2nd, you're not overly concerned about them jumping you for a prospect given that you are well enough aware that they are missing draft picks. And this is true - the Bengals, who also took a WR - the last time they traded up in the first 3 rounds was in 2002 when they traded an extra 5th to move up 6 spots in the 3rd round. The last time they traded up in the first round was in 1995 for Ki-Jana Carter. They just don't do it. The Bengals also were not a threat. 

So you have somebody who valued a WR, supposedly as #1, maybe #2 on his board - something that clearly didn't match the views of the five teams to take a WR before us, AND then traded up for fear of losing out on a prospect where it's highly suspect any other team would actually take him before #31. 

It's not just as simple saying "I hate the trade up" or "I hate the trade up for Aiyuk" - it's "I hate this very specific trade that happened in these very specific circumstances, and it's a seemingly common trend for our front office making me feel like this could just be a specific weakness/blind spot for them that they aren't going to fix." It's a lot more nuanced than what's being proposed as the contention.

For instance - if the beginning of the draft goes a little weirder, there are certain scenarios where this specific trade up for Aiyuk would make a lot more sense. For instance, if instead of Becton, the Jets take Lamb at #11, and then at #17, the Cowboys take Justin Jefferson. When #21 sends Reagor to Philly you're probably sweating out #22 as you wouldn't have the ammo. But say Minnesota goes Gladney at #22 (they took him at #31) without Jefferson on the board. Now you have a situation where at #25, there's a WR-needy team that just traded away Diggs that you know you might need to jump. I don't know if the Vikings would still make the trade for #25 so you might need to go a spot higher if it's possible. But in THAT scenario, a trade-up makes a lot of sense, and a trade-up specifically for Aiyuk is highly defensible.

In the world and scenario in which it happened - it just doesn't make much sense. It shows a poor understanding of all of the elements of scouting - which isn't a matter of knowing only what you need to do, but knowing what every other team needs to do as well.

You always explain my pov in more comprehensive way lol...