NcFinest9erFan Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcFinest9erFan Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 Just now, NcFinest9erFan said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudyZ Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 3 hours ago, y2lamanaki said: The "ease of trading back" point is a great one. I have said this in previous years that it's not quite that simple because it requires the 49ers to not fall in love with any player available (the chance of missing out on someone they really like) plus receiving an offer they like. That said, I don't care for the top of this draft class with the exception of a couple QBs (which we don't need) and Nelson (who likely won't be there). So, I would trade down well under value in this draft. I don't see a big difference this year between #9 and #19, so if one of those teams offered even just an extra 3rd to climb 10 spots, I would do it below value. But that's me. It's impossible to say if Lynch/Shanahan feel the same way. I agree with that. Trade value charts are very subjective. It basically comes down to what you value the pick you have. If you know you can take the same guy a few picks later, then whatever you can get on top of it is gravy (and being from Québec, I know better than most the value of gravy on top #ilovepoutine). You may use the value chart just to game the other GM into giving you closer to fair value, but you shouldn't reject his offer just because he's not giving up what the chart says. If the chart says 3rd rounder, and he only offers a 5th, you should still take it, because your guy + 5th is still better than your guy + nothing. But sometimes, there just aren't any offer. Last year, we all had ideas for trade backs, from 3 to 10, with future firsts involved, etc. The reality is, Lynch really only got one serious offer, and that was the Bears'. Maybe this year, the deals will happen with the picks before and after us, it's impossible to predict. And we might be stuck drafting at 9, and that's fair. You can't always maximize the value of your picks. Even when you trade, you usually leave some value on the table. All you can do is pick your highest rated player when you do pick. That's how you maximize value in general. But when you can get that guy and an extra pick, now friends, that's what we call poutine (which I believe is at the origin of the word "hatputs", which is a contraction of "I'll have that poutine". Fact.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudyZ Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 I wish to nominate my last post for Post of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 4 hours ago, y2lamanaki said: The "ease of trading back" point is a great one. I have said this in previous years that it's not quite that simple because it requires the 49ers to not fall in love with any player available (the chance of missing out on someone they really like) plus receiving an offer they like. That said, I don't care for the top of this draft class with the exception of a couple QBs (which we don't need) and Nelson (who likely won't be there). So, I would trade down well under value in this draft. I don't see a big difference this year between #9 and #19, so if one of those teams offered even just an extra 3rd to climb 10 spots, I would do it below value. But that's me. It's impossible to say if Lynch/Shanahan feel the same way. I think in terms of gap between best guy or two at a position and next guy after that - big dropoff from Barkley to whoever is next, big drop off from Nelson to whoever is next, big dropoff from Ward to whoever is next, big dropoff from Fitzpatrick and James to whoever is next, etc. One or more of those kind of guys might be there at 9 but not likely at 19. Of course if we picked up a lot to move back that would be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 4 hours ago, NcFinest9erFan said: I really want Penny. But we might just pick up a vet for not too much money and spend that second or third on another position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 What do you guys think about a permanent move of Ward back to CB even if it's "just" slot corner, and then bringing in Fitzpatrick to our Earl Thomas sort of guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GW21 Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 1 hour ago, rudyZ said: I wish to nominate my last post for Post of the year. I nominate my response your post nominating your last post for post of the year for post of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GW21 Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, big9erfan said: What do you guys think about a permanent move of Ward back to CB even if it's "just" slot corner, and then bringing in Fitzpatrick to our Earl Thomas sort of guy? Was calling for it all last year, well more so just to keep him at corner. I think he can be a solid outside guy honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 17 minutes ago, big9erfan said: What do you guys think about a permanent move of Ward back to CB even if it's "just" slot corner, and then bringing in Fitzpatrick to our Earl Thomas sort of guy? He probably should have been there last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GW21 Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 1 hour ago, rudyZ said: I agree with that. Trade value charts are very subjective. It basically comes down to what you value the pick you have. If you know you can take the same guy a few picks later, then whatever you can get on top of it is gravy (and being from Québec, I know better than most the value of gravy on top #ilovepoutine). You may use the value chart just to game the other GM into giving you closer to fair value, but you shouldn't reject his offer just because he's not giving up what the chart says. If the chart says 3rd rounder, and he only offers a 5th, you should still take it, because your guy + 5th is still better than your guy + nothing. But sometimes, there just aren't any offer. Last year, we all had ideas for trade backs, from 3 to 10, with future firsts involved, etc. The reality is, Lynch really only got one serious offer, and that was the Bears'. Maybe this year, the deals will happen with the picks before and after us, it's impossible to predict. And we might be stuck drafting at 9, and that's fair. You can't always maximize the value of your picks. Even when you trade, you usually leave some value on the table. All you can do is pick your highest rated player when you do pick. That's how you maximize value in general. But when you can get that guy and an extra pick, now friends, that's what we call poutine (which I believe is at the origin of the word "hatputs", which is a contraction of "I'll have that poutine". Fact.). Just to add to this a little bit; I think works the other way too. If you’ve got a guy on the board at your pick that you really like and you had graded very high, I think you have to kind of throw the chart out of the window too. If you view the prospect at your spot higher than what the chart suggests would be fair then you’ve got to either take him or make the other guy “overpay”. I’m Canadian terms: If you’ve got a handle of Crown sitting in front of you, you aren’t going to trade it for 4 12ers of Molson. If you feel like you’re sitting there with a 750 of Windsor, you’d take that deal in eh heartbeat (see what I did there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-catch Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Each year everybody wants to trade back, rarely do you hear about trading up. If Barkley, Nelson, and to a lesser extent Chubb(not quite sold yet) slides to say 6, I'd be up for throwing in one of our thirds. Pending what we do in FA of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justone2 Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 I really don't like Chubb's 3 cone. I feel its the most important drill for rushers and his time just ain't that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Justone2 said: I really don't like Chubb's 3 cone. I feel its the most important drill for rushers and his time just ain't that good. I'm a big 3 cone guy myself, and I said earlier this year that I wanted to see his combine before I decided on his fit. I think he's fine as a traditional end. Leo? I don't know. I think of them being more lithe and explosive. Like a 34 olb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Forge said: I'm a big 3 cone guy myself, and I said earlier this year that I wanted to see his combine before I decided on his fit. I think he's fine as a traditional end. Leo? I don't know. I think of them being more lithe and explosive. Like a 34 olb. So what do you think of Hubbard's 3-cone weighing in at 270? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.