rudyZ Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said: I stand by my statement. Does he only have to be on the roster by april 1st 2038, or are we talking about Week 1? Just in case I need a kidney... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y2lamanaki Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, rudyZ said: Does he only have to be on the roster by april 1st 2038, or are we talking about Week 1? Just in case I need a kidney... I mean...I meant starter, so week 1 for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 33 minutes ago, Uncle_Rico said: If they were surprised by it, that's one thing. But if they weren't anticipating the worst case scenario and how that would impact their plans then they mishandled the situation. Anticipating something happening is different from the reality of it. If they thought Foster would not miss time or maybe be suspended for a few games then they might figure he's still the long term answer in the middle and be willing to go elsewhere with their high picks. Maybe take a shot at an ILB lower in the draft. But if the chances of him not being a long term solution have changed dramatically (I'm not sure about that, but the news doesn't sound good for his long term future here) then things are different and that LB need becomes a lot more pressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 30 minutes ago, rudyZ said: I'm sure there were several plans. Plan A with Reuben, plan B without. Just like there was a Plan A prior to october 31st that included a top 2 QB. Plans change, and I'm sure they try to anticipate all sorts of scenarios. They probably had plans including some free agents who turned out not to be available. If lowly bumbling morons (speaking for myself) like us can have multiple plans, then these guys probably have plans for things we don't even foresee. They probably have plans for the after Trent Brown, or even the after Staley, that we don't even bother to consider. I wouldn't even be surprised if they already have files on QBs who will be available in the next few years in case Jimmy flops. My godson will be in his draft year in 2038, if anyone is working on future QBs. There's a decent chance he'll be a lefty. Yes. This. Teams have an overall strategy which includes multiple plans, backup plans, contingency plans, etc. ... at least teams should be operating like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 I remember listening to Jim Trotter last week and him saying the 49ers expect Foster to be suspended for six games but that they are okay with it since it will teach him a lesson. Um what? Seems like they probably knew more than they are letting on and are just fine with what he did since he is so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justone2 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said: I remember listening to Jim Trotter last week and him saying the 49ers expect Foster to be suspended for six games but that they are okay with it since it will teach him a lesson. Um what? Seems like they probably knew more than they are letting on and are just fine with what he did since he is so good. Or they heard a complete different story than what actually happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 3 hours ago, Uncle_Rico said: Hard pass on the lefty QB prospect. That would put Trent Brown III in a more vital position and I'm not sure he'll be ready for that. I totally agree with all that. That's why I'm saying all of this "now we're definitely going Roquan or Edmunds" talk doesn't make sense to me. We likely already had a plan in place so nothing has changed. All those guys do is sit around and talk scenarios so I don't buy that this changes their plans. How did this discussion turn into a "defintiely take" discussion? It's about ILB being a much bigger need if Foster is not here, then it is if he is here. If potentially losing a pro bowler at a position does not change a team's drafting plan then mock drafts make no sense. Of course most teams, and we for sure, have multiple needs. And positonal value matters. And our assessment of how good a guy we can get in rounds 2 or 3 at position A vs position B matters. So of course it doesn't mean we're "definitely" taking an ILB. But it's impossible for me not to think the odds of doing that just went up. What I said in my post was that in trying to guess who we would take I couldn't quite decide between S and ILB. My guess for which it turns out to be does definitely depend on whether we can count on Foster for the long term or not. There's a huge difference to me between thinking a guy is likely to be suspended for a few games vs might be off the team. Of course we all need to find out more about what the news means. But right now, for me, ILB is a bigger need than it was yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudyZ Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said: I remember listening to Jim Trotter last week and him saying the 49ers expect Foster to be suspended for six games but that they are okay with it since it will teach him a lesson. Um what? Seems like they probably knew more than they are letting on and are just fine with what he did since he is so good. Even if there hadn't been legal charges made against Foster, it's still likely the NFL would have suspended him. Maybe they were talking with league offices and were very well aware of that possibility. At the same time, maybe their knowledge of the situation was similar to the one we had for two months, that the events didn't seem too bad and maybe Reuben wouldn't be charged after all. The one thing I'm sure they had is Reuben's side of the story. Now that we know the prosecutor's version of the events, and that our FO knows it, it seems to be an entirely different story. Now, not only is it pretty much guaranteed Foster is going to be suspended by the league, it also seems likely he might face prison time as well. It may not so much be about teaching him a lesson anymore. Unless he has bonuses scheduled if he's still on the roster at some point, I see no reason to cut him right now. If he's suspended, he doesn't get paycheques, does he? We might even recover some of the moneys already given to him without releasing him. As long as he doesn't gain anything from the team, I don't see the point of cutting him. If we paid him, while he is being convicted as a criminal, then I'd have a problem. But if he doesn't receive any money from the team, whether he is technically on the roster or not doesn't matter much to me. It would even be the responsible thing to keep a line of communication open with him. When troubled athletes are left to themselves, they tend to unravel way faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 We could take either James or Minkah in the first and then look for a LB in a later round. But I've been pondering where we could get a safety if we went with Smith or Edmunds in the first. I just realized we could take Edmunds in the first and Edmunds in the second. Or, we could re-sign Eric Reid for a year and draft Justin Reid. How would Edmunds and Edmunds, or Reid and Reid sound on the same defense? Anyone out there got a favorite safety prospect to take at 59 or with one of our thirds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 I think we all recognize that we are lucky there are 4 QBs who will likely go in the top 10, because it means we will either get a top 5 talent at #9 or we will be able to trade back. Would you rather: Scenario A) draft roquan/Edmunds/james/Fitzpatrick/whoever at #9, and then trade our second, next year's second, and probably another pick to move into the 20s and take Landry. We would come out with two bonafide starters for the defense. Scenario B) trade down to the late teens, then trade down again and acquire 4-5 picks including a future 2. This would let us completely rebuild the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissooner49er Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 It doesn't have to be a LB @ 9. If we were to trade down, I would love to target Vander Esch. If we don't take any until day 2, Fred Warner of BYU would be a great candidate. I don't mind Jewell (or anyone from Iowa, for that matter). N4L: I would absolutely be ecstatic over Scenario A. Get Smith @ 9 and Landry lower with trade up? Absolutely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big9erfan Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 9 hours ago, N4L said: I think we all recognize that we are lucky there are 4 QBs who will likely go in the top 10, because it means we will either get a top 5 talent at #9 or we will be able to trade back. Would you rather: Scenario A) draft roquan/Edmunds/james/Fitzpatrick/whoever at #9, and then trade our second, next year's second, and probably another pick to move into the 20s and take Landry. We would come out with two bonafide starters for the defense. Scenario B) trade down to the late teens, then trade down again and acquire 4-5 picks including a future 2. This would let us completely rebuild the defense. Not a chance. I'm not giving up 3 picks, two of which are relatively high for Landry. It's a terrible year for edge rushers. Most years we'll just be able to pick up a guy like that, or better, in the 20's and still have all those other picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted April 13, 2018 Author Share Posted April 13, 2018 10 hours ago, N4L said: I think we all recognize that we are lucky there are 4 QBs who will likely go in the top 10, because it means we will either get a top 5 talent at #9 or we will be able to trade back. Would you rather: Scenario A) draft roquan/Edmunds/james/Fitzpatrick/whoever at #9, and then trade our second, next year's second, and probably another pick to move into the 20s and take Landry. We would come out with two bonafide starters for the defense. Scenario B) trade down to the late teens, then trade down again and acquire 4-5 picks including a future 2. This would let us completely rebuild the defense. I'm with Big on this one, I want nothing to do with trading up that far to grab Landry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Trade down to the low teens, grab an additional 2nd rounder, take Landry with the 1st pick and then go IOL/LB/CB with the 2nd rounders and early 3rd rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erurtaza Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Forge said: I'm with Big on this one, I want nothing to do with trading up that far to grab Landry I agree, we still have a huge hole at guard I'd like to draft fairly early on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.