Niners traded up for Brandon Aiyuk at 25 WR

[Ronnie's Pinky]

24 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

It's case by case basis. I don't recall anyone saying all trade-ups are bad and non-essential.

But in the case of this current regime running the team, nothing good has come from them trading up to draft guys they 'love'. Absolutely nothing.

5% signal; 95% noise

Judgment based on little information is of little value.

[Forge]

1 hour ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

I do not understand people's strong feelings about trading draft picks. I feel like there's a lot of inconsistency to the logic, and a lot of regurgitation of "consensus wisdom" regarding picks, their value, etc. Some people seem to be in love with the idea of trading down in the draft, as if doing so is a universally good strategy. Amassing more late round picks probably is the best way to maximize draft return in the long-term, but it's only a strategy that makes sense if you have the roster space to accommodate a bunch of rookies. Bill Walsh loved trading down, but when he had a superbowl roster already, he famously traded up in the 1st round of the 1985 draft for a wide receiver. You know who he is.

Walsh is famous for loving to trade down in the draft, but one of his trade-downs was an all-time gaffe. In 1981, Walsh moved back two slots in the 2nd round with the Bears, picking up a 5th rounder in the process. Terrific value, except that the player the Bears drafted at that pick was Mike Singletary. Ouch. Many of Walsh's best moves were actually trade-ups. He sent two 2nd rounders out in 1982 in order to acquire a single high 2nd rounder (#29). Sounds like terrible value, but the guy he took there was Bubba Paris. In 1984, Walsh traded up in the 3rd round, sending the Cardinals a later 3rd + a 5th in order to select Guy McIntyre. Walsh got Pierce Holt in 1988 after a trade-up in the 2nd round, as well.

Post-Walsh (or rather, in-between his tenures as GM), again armed with a superbowl-calibre roster in 1994, the 49ers traded their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks to move up in the first round and select a defensive tackle. I don't have to tell you his name, either. The point of all this is that trading either up or down is not inherently valuable, in itself. Also, the best talent evaluators tend to go with "their guys", and will sometimes make selections which seem like head-scratchers to others. Walsh did it sometimes, and Belichick does it constantly. Both Bills would tell you to count the rings.

tl;dr - getting up in arms about the trading of draft picks or where some guy was drafted in comparison to the consensus on his value is silly.

Biggest problem here is that you are playing the results with most of this. 

[Ronnie's Pinky]

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

Biggest problem here is that you are playing the results with most of this. 

And the people who obsess about trades for C.J. Beathard, Joe Williams and Reuben Foster are not?

[Forge]

Just now, Ronnie's Pinky said:

And the people who obsess about trades for C.J. Beathard, Joe Williams and Reuben Foster are not?

I'm not, and I didn't like the trade up for Pettis, Beathard or Williams. I was considerably against each of them. If you want to go to the old regime as well, add in Garnett. 

I will defend the Foster trade up from now until the end of time. 

For some people, its about the process, situation, etc. You'd probably have to ask each of them individually, to be honest. But truthfully, what those people are obsessed with is irrelevant to my response on your post. 

[Tubthumper]

I have to trust the front office until I want them replaced.  I do not want them replaced, so I will currently believe in their picks.  They have taken a garbage roster and turned it into a super bowl contender.  I believe Shanahan has learned from his past WR mistakes (you have to have toughness as well as fit the system). 

I think the Pettis pick has a lot of people questioning Shanahan's ability to properly judge WR's.  I think he just got caught off guard by someone who just does not have the drive to become great.  Since that pick, we have gotten Deebo who is great and Hurd who looked like he could be great before his injury.  If the front office sees an impact player like Deebo then I am all in.  I would gladly trade what we did in order to get another receiver along Deebo's caliber.  Would you rather have the #1 receiver on our board or the 6th receiver on our board and a 4th/5th Rd pick?  I would take the #1 receiver everytime.

[Ronnie's Pinky]

6 minutes ago, Forge said:

For some people, its about the process, situation, etc. You'd probably have to ask each of them individually, to be honest. But truthfully, what those people are obsessed with is irrelevant to my response on your post. 

Sure, but what's the point in worrying about these things when we have so much less information about it than the people actually making the decisions?

[Forge]

3 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Sure, but what's the point in worrying about these things when we have so much less information about it than the people actually making the decisions?

It's a message board where we share opinions and discuss things. Do any of us really "worry" about it? It's just about sharing our viewpoints. 

[757-NINER]

1 hour ago, Tubthumper said:

I have to trust the front office until I want them replaced.  I do not want them replaced, so I will currently believe in their picks.  They have taken a garbage roster and turned it into a super bowl contender.  I believe Shanahan has learned from his past WR mistakes (you have to have toughness as well as fit the system). 

I think the Pettis pick has a lot of people questioning Shanahan's ability to properly judge WR's.  I think he just got caught off guard by someone who just does not have the drive to become great.  Since that pick, we have gotten Deebo who is great and Hurd who looked like he could be great before his injury.  If the front office sees an impact player like Deebo then I am all in.  I would gladly trade what we did in order to get another receiver along Deebo's caliber.  Would you rather have the #1 receiver on our board or the 6th receiver on our board and a 4th/5th Rd pick?  I would take the #1 receiver everytime.

There are other migating factors at work here. Its not as simple as draft the #1 guy on your board, every year and we'll be great 👍

Other criteria factor in.

You mentioned Deebo. You do know that he was not the #1 WR on their board last year right? Which further illustrates my point. It doesn't ALWAYS have to be the prospect you love that benefits you the most.

Edited April 27, 2020 by 757-NINER

[757-NINER]

30 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

5% signal; 95% noise

Judgment based on little information is of little value.

Football is a results-based business. Only information I need to base my train of thought on is the stat line for Beathard, Joe Williams, Foster, and Pettis after every game. How is that signal-to-noise ratio for ya?

I've already alluded to the fact that we aren't privy to the team's intel. But anyone with two eyes can gather their own and see that these type of scenarios haven't worked in our favor. 

 

[Ronnie's Pinky]

6 minutes ago, Forge said:

It's a message board where we share opinions and discuss things. Do any of us really "worry" about it? It's just about sharing our viewpoints. 

Sure thing. Nobody knows anything, and all we can do is look to the past. Looking to the past is fine, but large recency and sample size biases are unavoidable when attempting to judge the global competence of a front office based on the results of, what, three drafts?

[Ronnie's Pinky]

9 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

Football is a results-based business. Only information I need to base my train of thought on is the stat line for Beathard, Joe Williams, Foster, and Pettis after every game. How is that signal-to-noise ratio for ya?

Terrible. You have a sample size of four "failures", and a couple of those are actually debatable. This is the very definition of "playing the results", as Forge would put it. There is far too much randomness in your tiny sample of results to draw any meaningful conclusions.

I'm not going to lecture you on freshmen--level statistics, but this is what the kids call "navel-gazing".

Edited April 27, 2020 by Ronnie's Pinky

[Uncle_Rico]

8 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

Football is a results-based business. Only information I need to base my train of thought on is the stat line for Beathard, Joe Williams, Foster, and Pettis after every game. How is that signal-to-noise ratio for ya?

I've already alluded to the fact that we aren't privy to the team's intel. But anyone with two eyes can gather their own and see that these type of scenarios haven't worked in our favor. 

 

Had that list of names been George Kittle, Fred Warner, Dre Greenlaw, and Deebo Samuel would you think it would be a good idea for them to trade up in every draft?

[Forge]

10 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Sure thing. Nobody knows anything, and all we can do is look to the past. Looking to the past is fine, but large recency and sample size biases are unavoidable when attempting to judge the global competence of a front office based on the results of, what, three drafts?

But my opinion on this trade up is not based on anything in the past.  It's based on this particular draft and these particular players. The fact that the trade ups have in large part blown up in our faces is really nothing more than an amusing anecdote. 

I had a difference of opinion with the FO, that is all. Would I have traded up for Aiyuk? Absolutely not. Not in this situation. Even if Aiyuk balls out, that opinion on the decision will never change as it isn't based on what happens from here on out.

 Now, let's say that there was Aiyuk, and then the next best receiver was DPJ (IE, Aiyuk was the last first round grade i had for a receiver and the next highest grade was 5th round). Would I have made the trade up in that scenario? You bet your butt. There's a time and a place. I did not agree with the the FO that this was the time or place or that there was enough separating Aiyuk from the others to give up assets in a draft where we lacked capital. I'm generally fairly consistent with this particular complaint regarding trade ups. 

[Forge]

45 minutes ago, Tubthumper said:

I have to trust the front office until I want them replaced.  I do not want them replaced, so I will currently believe in their picks.  They have taken a garbage roster and turned it into a super bowl contender.  I believe Shanahan has learned from his past WR mistakes (you have to have toughness as well as fit the system). 

I think the Pettis pick has a lot of people questioning Shanahan's ability to properly judge WR's.  I think he just got caught off guard by someone who just does not have the drive to become great.  Since that pick, we have gotten Deebo who is great and Hurd who looked like he could be great before his injury.  If the front office sees an impact player like Deebo then I am all in.  I would gladly trade what we did in order to get another receiver along Deebo's caliber.  Would you rather have the #1 receiver on our board or the 6th receiver on our board and a 4th/5th Rd pick?  I would take the #1 receiver everytime.

Nothing wrong with that. I trust them when it comes to the fit. I am worried about Aiyuk trying to play outside, and we have plenty of slot guys, which is where I thought he was going to have to spend the majority of his time at the next level, which bugged me (same concern I had with Jefferson). So I'm going to trust Shanny to do his thing and really make sure the fit part of that equation isn't a problem even though before drafting him I said that was one of my concerns for us specifically. 

[757-NINER]

34 minutes ago, Uncle_Rico said:

Had that list of names been George Kittle, Fred Warner, Dre Greenlaw, and Deebo Samuel would you think it would be a good idea for them to trade up in every draft?

I've already stated its a case by case critique.

Each scenario has its own outliers...

The results just further illustrates a concerning pattern for me personally...

It isn't just about the history but how they haven't learned from said history. Its never a good idea to trade up all the time, nor trade down every year either. I bring up the history to show when they are aggressive, it tends to backfire. That doesn't mean never be aggressive. Like Forge alluded to, there is a time and a draft to be aggressive. 

And for me, its the issue of trading up within the first 3 rounds and forking over premium future picks. I will always be a person that believes that at least 60% of your roster should be your own draft picks/UDFAs. So I may value picks in rounds 1- 3 more than most. But in a league with a hard cap, you have to constantly replenish talent that walks out the door for a bigger payday elsewhere. So when you move up and give up prime draft real estate later down the road or in that current draft and then further compound that by missing on those trade-ups, you severely hamper your ability to grow your roster.

Now it hasn't really been a issue yet because we have been active in free agency and have previously had the cap space to go out and offset those misses. But moving forward, that will no longer be the case. We may have cap flexibility but we won't have the big bank to just throw money at free agents like we've been doing. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by 757-NINER