2018 Draft Thread I

[big9erfan]

13 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Kiper's three round mock draft has us picking:

Round 1 (9): Roquan Smith, LB, Georgia
Round 2 (59): Isaiah Oliver, CB, Colorado
Round 3 (70): Dante Pettis, WR, Washington
Round 3 (74): Kerryon Johnson, RB, Auburn

Wow, I would LOVE that draft. Huge fan of both of Smith/Oliver, and Pettis is a baller while Johnson may be the sleeper RB of the draft. 

 

Yep. I like all of those guys and like the positions he's addressed. Success rate for low 4ths is not good so it probably doesn't matter much. But if there was any decent edge rusher left in his mock I think I'd have taken a stab at one here.  I think edge guys are a little like QBs - you keep taking one every year until you hit the jackpot.

[N4L]

33 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

And really you kind of need to have some to win in this league lol. It comes down to how you manage them and if you could keep their head on straight. Rams certainly don't give a damn about any character risk guys and just want to accumulate as much talent as they possibly can. 

It's funny, one article talks about how Lynch loves Fitzpatrick because of his high character and leadership skills and then we go on and supposedly love Key as well LOL. 

Is that Ruben Foster over there? I smell smoke

[big9erfan]

57 minutes ago, Forge said:

I remember last year, under the new FO, how people were positive that we would only take high character guys. I feel like there were quite a few people who were adamant that we wouldn't take character risk guys, especially after cutting Brock. I'm not going to say that we obviously don't care, but clearly we aren't a "you are off our board team" either. Seems we have plenty of risk appetite for character risk guys. 

I think we'll have to wait, maybe even another year or more, before we can say for sure. Even if we had concerns about taking guys with "character issues" it's still up to us to decide who those guys are. Best way to do that is to talk with them and get their side of the story. See how much they learned from whatever incident makes them "questionable", etc. I read nothing into our talking to these guys.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, big9erfan said:

I think we'll have to wait, maybe even another year or more, before we can say for sure. Even if we had concerns about taking guys with "character issues" it's still up to us to decide who those guys are. Best way to do that is to talk with them and get their side of the story. See how much they learned from whatever incident makes them "questionable", etc. I read nothing into our talking to these guys.

I think it's safe to say that we are not arbitrarily taking them off the board if we are at least talking to them. 

[Uncle_Rico]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I think it's safe to say that we are not arbitrarily taking them off the board if we are at least talking to them. 

Agreed. It's really just good business to find out for yourself on all these guys. It's a matter of us having our own opinion of what "character concerns" are. One teams character concern isn't the same as another's.

However, we are certainly a team that removes players from our board due to character concerns. Joe Williams was completely off our board (temporarily) for that reason so we clearly put that into practice. 

Arden Key is someone I figured we'd have off our board due to the fact that he left his team. That was exactly Joe Williams' offense that got him removed from our board. But, just like in Williams' situation we clearly investigate on a case by case basis and make our determination. It doesn't hurt him that he plays the exact position we're most desperate to find.

[J-ALL-DAY]

15 minutes ago, N4L said:

Is that Ruben Foster over there? I smell smoke

I'm definitely not Ruben Foster....But I can't neither confirm nor deny that I'm Reuben Foster .

[Uncle_Rico]

Also, now that a lot of the workout numbers are out I found the RB that I think we'll definitely be interested come draft day (assuming we're interested in adding another). 

Nyheim Hines - NC State

My guess is that Shanny doesn't really care about diversification in his backfield. He has a type (blazing speed, home run ability, good receiver out of the backfield) and will just load up on those guys so we can just plug next man up if there's an injury. 

 

[rudyZ]

2 hours ago, 49erurtaza said:

 

Mike White would make a lot of sense for the Pats. He looked great at the Senior Bowl. While everyone was looking at Baker and Josh, it was the lesser known guys who were actually the top performers. Mike White and Kurt Benkert looked like would be great back-ups, at worst, in the NFL. I think White is already pushing Hoyer down the depth chart, if he's drafted by the Pats.

As for Key... I'm not a believer. He hasn't shown to be the dominant athlete I was expecting, and production and effort level is lacking. 

[rudyZ]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

I remember last year, under the new FO, how people were positive that we would only take high character guys. I feel like there were quite a few people who were adamant that we wouldn't take character risk guys, especially after cutting Brock. I'm not going to say that we obviously don't care, but clearly we aren't a "you are off our board team" either. Seems we have plenty of risk appetite for character risk guys. 

I think you need a critical mass of high character leaders before you can take chances on risky guys. But I do think sometimes you take the risk in order to get the reward. We could take a guy like Aldon, because we had guys like Willis and Justin Smith next to him, in my opinion. If all you do is take hot headed talented guys, at some point you'll struggle with consistency.

I think we have that critical mass of character on the team already. On defense, we have Buck and Solly, and now Sherman who hopefully replaces the leadership of Eric Reid, and I don't know, maybe Malcolm Smith is a good locker room guy? Is he? No idea. And on offense, I don't care how crazy someone is, no one is going to be bigger than Jimmy. No one will be an arrogant prick around Joe Staley. Pierre Garçon has leadership, and I must say, Marquise Goodwin is a strong individual (and I think that's the reason, more than his on field performance, that led to his extension). We have a strong enough roster to take chances on guys like Foster, Joe Williams (according to some), and perhaps and Arden Key. I don't like him as a player, and I didn't like when he claimed to be the best pass rusher in this class in an interview, because seriously, watch the tape, Arden... maybe he can be, but right now, he doesn't look like a top 5 pass rusher in this class at all. But it's not the character risk that weighs the most, in my opinion. 

[big9erfan]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

I think it's safe to say that we are not arbitrarily taking them off the board if we are at least talking to them. 

Sure. What I meant was maybe we're still taking guys we decide have character issues off the board because we don't know either who's still on the board, or who we think are guys with character issues. It's clear we're not ruling guys out just because of reported problems in the past. I like this approach - talk to them; make up your own mind about them. Then decide whether youy're still interested or not.

[big9erfan]

1 hour ago, Uncle_Rico said:

Also, now that a lot of the workout numbers are out I found the RB that I think we'll definitely be interested come draft day (assuming we're interested in adding another). 

Nyheim Hines - NC State

My guess is that Shanny doesn't really care about diversification in his backfield. He has a type (blazing speed, home run ability, good receiver out of the backfield) and will just load up on those guys so we can just plug next man up if there's an injury. 

 

I almost put him in my mock that I just did. What I read though made me think he's probably not the kind of guy Shanny would be interested in. Still, all that speed!

[big9erfan]

4 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

I think you need a critical mass of high character leaders before you can take chances on risky guys. But I do think sometimes you take the risk in order to get the reward. We could take a guy like Aldon, because we had guys like Willis and Justin Smith next to him, in my opinion. If all you do is take hot headed talented guys, at some point you'll struggle with consistency.

I think we have that critical mass of character on the team already. On defense, we have Buck and Solly, and now Sherman who hopefully replaces the leadership of Eric Reid, and I don't know, maybe Malcolm Smith is a good locker room guy? Is he? No idea. And on offense, I don't care how crazy someone is, no one is going to be bigger than Jimmy. No one will be an arrogant prick around Joe Staley. Pierre Garçon has leadership, and I must say, Marquise Goodwin is a strong individual (and I think that's the reason, more than his on field performance, that led to his extension). We have a strong enough roster to take chances on guys like Foster, Joe Williams (according to some), and perhaps and Arden Key. I don't like him as a player, and I didn't like when he claimed to be the best pass rusher in this class in an interview, because seriously, watch the tape, Arden... maybe he can be, but right now, he doesn't look like a top 5 pass rusher in this class at all. But it's not the character risk that weighs the most, in my opinion. 

Good point. I remember really well a play last year where Colbert blasted a guy and was bending over him and just starting to jaw at him in a way the refs might have thought was taunting. Reid came over and grabbed him and just pulled him away. You need a few of those high character guys to try to keep the questionable ones out of trouble.

[J-ALL-DAY]

Yep, you have to be able to manage high character risk players with good leadership around them. But you can't just avoid any prospect with some red flags because it is damn near impossible to field a team like that. Also can't just keep drafting those types of players as Rudy alluded too. 

 

[rudyZ]

2 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Yep, you have to be able to manage high character risk players with good leadership around them. But you can't just avoid any prospect with some red flags because it is damn near impossible to field a team like that. Also can't just keep drafting those types of players as Rudy alluded too. 

 

Like everything else, you need a good mix. You can't have a team of all rookies, or all 30+. You can't have a team full of super aggressive players, or a team full of risk-averse players. You can't be all offense, no defense, or vice versa. So, I don't think you win with 46 goodie-goodies, or with 46 hot heads. You'll have some of them, and then you'll have a handful of great leaders, and generally, 30-something just normal dudes who neither get in trouble or really become leaders. A good mix of veteran perspective with youthful exuberance, some aggressive guys with solid if unspectacular guys watching their backs. I guess, I feel like you can live with some red flags if your team's core is solid, and if the upside warrants it. That doesn't mean they should get a preferential treatment just because of their potential. You just give them a chance to get their life in order, and the leash gets shorter every time they mess up. But if they get their stuff together, and they can tap their potential, you got a potential game changer, and you know what? These guys change games. True story, bro.

[Forge]

12 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

You can't have a team of all rookies, or all 30+

Tell that to my Madden and NHL franchises!