2018 Draft Thread I

[y2lamanaki]

1 hour ago, big9erfan said:

And you keep looking in the rearview mirror trying to re-define the trade. If you simply go back and look at when the trade was made and annonced you'll see that the trade was for Bibbs, not for Taylor.  This headline is from 49ers.com - "49ers Trade for Broncos RB Kapri Bibbs". And this one is from ESPN -"49ers send 2018 fourth-round pick to Broncos for Kapri Bibbs, 2017 pick". Or this comment from NBC sports "The 49ers acquired running back Kapri Bibbs from the Denver Broncos in general manager John Lynch’s fifth trade of the draft." Here's what the Broncos site had to say "The Denver Broncos traded running back Kapri Bibbs to the San Francisco 49ers on Saturday morning."

I'm evaluating the trade for Bibbs, not how well we drafted. The trade was for us to acquire Bibbs. Taylor was incidental to the trade because the trade was made and announced long before pick 177 rolled around, at a time when we had no idea if Taylor or any specific player would be there for us to choose.  That is very different from what the Saints did.  They saw Kamara on the board and wanted him so they made a trade to get him.  Sure it was a draft pick they got.  But they knew they would use in on Kamara.  So it's fair to say the trade was for Kamara. That's exactly what we did with our move for Foster.  So it's fair to say we moved up to get Foster. In fact that's how most draft day moves get made.  They are for picks to be used on specific players.  But the trade we made that gave us pick 177 was different.  It was not a case of us seeing Taylor stil on the board and then making a trade to get him specifically.  If that were the case then I would agree with the way youi are seeing the trade.  But that is not what happened. The trade was announced long before pick 177 rolled around. The specific player involved in this trade was not Taylor; it was Bibbs. We wanted Bibbs and what we paid to get him was the move down. We had no idea if Taylor, or any other player we might want for that matter, would still be there when 177 rolled around. We were lucky enough to find that Taylor was still there, and smart enough to pick him.  All well and good. He does look like a solid choice and he will be part of the legacy of the 2017 draft class. But that doesn't change this into a trade for Taylor; it was a trade for Bibbs.

As I said months ago, the fact that we managed to pick up someone good with the pick we got soothes over the fact that we paid the pirce of a move back of 60 spots in the draft to get Bibbs, and he was worthless. But IMHO getting lucky with the pick we got does not make the trade a good trade. If that were the case  then if we traded our 1st rounder for some team's 7th rounder that would be a good trade as long as the guy we picked in the 7th round was better than the guy they picked in the first round. If we happened to a homerun with that pick then I would agree with the bolded - it would be seen as the lasting legacy of that draft. It would be a solid choice.  Where I differ from you is in using that kind of hinsight to evaluate the trade..  A 7th rounder is not more valuable than a 1st rounder and trading a 7th rounder for a 1st rounder is a bad trade even if the other team blows that first round pick and you hit a homrerun with that 7th rounder. In exactly the same way I believe that trading pick 120 for pick 170 plus something that is of no value is by definition not a good trade, and my opinion on that does not change based on how the picks were used.,  I'm not faulting the trade becasue of value charts.  They play no part in my position whatsoever. I'm faulting the trade because of how I value Bibbs.  I have no idea how much more valuable pick 120 is than 177, but it doesn't matter because the value of Bibbs ( zero) added to the value of pick 177 still does not equal the value of pick 120. 

 

 

 

From the 49ers.com article:

"The San Francisco 49ers have swung another Draft Day deal. The 49ers have acquired Denver Broncos running back Kapri Bibbs and Denver's fifth round pick (177) in exchange for San Francisco's 2018 fourth round pick."

From the ESPN article:

"The San Francisco 49ers continued their wheeling and dealing Saturday, sending a 2018 fourth-round draft pick to the Denver Broncos in exchange for running back Kapri Bibbs and a fifth-round pick (No. 177 overall) this year."

Both articles you referenced noted the trade was for Bibbs and a 5th in the first paragraph. The impetus for the trade is 100% irrelevant. For the 7,424,589,543rd time, if the 49ers wanted to trade and acquire only Bibbs for a 4th, they could have. And it would have been a failure. But they didn't. They wisely got a 5th back, and they hit on that pick.

It is absolutely absurd that something this simple is either misunderstood, or deliberately argued out of a childish need to not be wrong.

[rudyZ]

2 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

 

From the 49ers.com article:

"The San Francisco 49ers have swung another Draft Day deal. The 49ers have acquired Denver Broncos running back Kapri Bibbs and Denver's fifth round pick (177) in exchange for San Francisco's 2018 fourth round pick."

From the ESPN article:

"The San Francisco 49ers continued their wheeling and dealing Saturday, sending a 2018 fourth-round draft pick to the Denver Broncos in exchange for running back Kapri Bibbs and a fifth-round pick (No. 177 overall) this year."

Both articles you referenced noted the trade was for Bibbs and a 5th in the first paragraph. The impetus for the trade is 100% irrelevant. For the 7,424,589,543rd time, if the 49ers wanted to trade and acquire only Bibbs for a 4th, they could have. And it would have been a failure. But they didn't. They wisely got a 5th back, and they hit on that pick.

It is absolutely absurd that something this simple is either misunderstood, or deliberately argued out of a childish need to not be wrong.

What's funny to me is that if Bibbs had worked out for us (he could have, who knows.. he played decently for Washington at the end of the year after all), then we would look at the trade and think Lynch is a genius. A decent RB AND a potential star slot receiver, for only a fourth round pick!

Other thing, if we call teams around the league, and ask for that extra fifth rounder, because we really want to use it on Taylor, what do they ask in return? No, they don't ask a sixth and a seventh of the current year. They ALWAYS ask for a better pick next year. If you want an extra second rounder, the first return they ask for is a future first. Then you start negotiating, maybe a current third and a future second, or something along those lines. If you want a current 7th rounder, the other team will ask for a future 6th. That's how it goes. We wanted a fifth, we call the Broncos, they ask for a future 4th. That's the going rate for current picks. Lynch negotiated and told Elway: "Okay, I'll give you the 4th, but you add that Bibbs guy, and we have a deal". So the question is: did we trade for Bibbs, then added a fifth, or we traded for a fifth, then added Bibbs? Chances are it's the latter.

[y2lamanaki]

13 hours ago, rudyZ said:

What's funny to me is that if Bibbs had worked out for us (he could have, who knows.. he played decently for Washington at the end of the year after all), then we would look at the trade and think Lynch is a genius. A decent RB AND a potential star slot receiver, for only a fourth round pick!

Other thing, if we call teams around the league, and ask for that extra fifth rounder, because we really want to use it on Taylor, what do they ask in return? No, they don't ask a sixth and a seventh of the current year. They ALWAYS ask for a better pick next year. If you want an extra second rounder, the first return they ask for is a future first. Then you start negotiating, maybe a current third and a future second, or something along those lines. If you want a current 7th rounder, the other team will ask for a future 6th. That's how it goes. We wanted a fifth, we call the Broncos, they ask for a future 4th. That's the going rate for current picks. Lynch negotiated and told Elway: "Okay, I'll give you the 4th, but you add that Bibbs guy, and we have a deal". So the question is: did we trade for Bibbs, then added a fifth, or we traded for a fifth, then added Bibbs? Chances are it's the latter.

Oh, I'm certain the call was for Bibbs (or at least, the first part of the trade that developed began with Bibbs). Big is correct on that part - there'd be no need to request a pick that was a long way away having no idea who could possibly be there (although, that's not to say they didn't have a group of 10-15 guys that were equally rated and they were equally fond of and were convinced at least one would be there). But that conversation at some point had to be "We'll give up a 4th, but we need something more than Bibbs back to feel comfortable about this trade." They got that something back, and they hit on it. 

We don't have this year's 4th, because we traded last year for Kapri Bibbs and a pick that became Trent Taylor. In the end, Trent Taylor made that move a good one. 

And as I've said repeatedly in the past - I'd have never made that trade. It just happened to work out.

[big9erfan]

21 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

 

From the 49ers.com article:

"The San Francisco 49ers have swung another Draft Day deal. The 49ers have acquired Denver Broncos running back Kapri Bibbs and Denver's fifth round pick (177) in exchange for San Francisco's 2018 fourth round pick."

From the ESPN article:

"The San Francisco 49ers continued their wheeling and dealing Saturday, sending a 2018 fourth-round draft pick to the Denver Broncos in exchange for running back Kapri Bibbs and a fifth-round pick (No. 177 overall) this year."

Both articles you referenced noted the trade was for Bibbs and a 5th in the first paragraph. The impetus for the trade is 100% irrelevant. For the 7,424,589,543rd time, if the 49ers wanted to trade and acquire only Bibbs for a 4th, they could have. And it would have been a failure. But they didn't. They wisely got a 5th back, and they hit on that pick.

It is absolutely absurd that something this simple is either misunderstood, or deliberately argued out of a childish need to not be wrong.

22 hours ago, rudyZ said:

What's funny to me is that if Bibbs had worked out for us (he could have, who knows.. he played decently for Washington at the end of the year after all), then we would look at the trade and think Lynch is a genius. A decent RB AND a potential star slot receiver, for only a fourth round pick!

Other thing, if we call teams around the league, and ask for that extra fifth rounder, because we really want to use it on Taylor, what do they ask in return? No, they don't ask a sixth and a seventh of the current year. They ALWAYS ask for a better pick next year. If you want an extra second rounder, the first return they ask for is a future first. Then you start negotiating, maybe a current third and a future second, or something along those lines. If you want a current 7th rounder, the other team will ask for a future 6th. That's how it goes. We wanted a fifth, we call the Broncos, they ask for a future 4th. That's the going rate for current picks. Lynch negotiated and told Elway: "Okay, I'll give you the 4th, but you add that Bibbs guy, and we have a deal". So the question is: did we trade for Bibbs, then added a fifth, or we traded for a fifth, then added Bibbs? Chances are it's the latter.

I actually thought about this exact thing.  Had we simply wanted Taylor my guess that we could have worked a trade for our future 5th instead of 4th.  Don't know for sure . But not all 5ths are created equal. I think most folks guessed that our 5th would probably be in the range of the 5th or 6th of the round and the pick we got was down into the comp range. That's still about 30 picks higher. At the top of the draft that represent just about a full round.

[y2lamanaki]

Looking at the value chart, team needs, and the upcoming class, I wonder if we might be a potential trade partner with Buffalo to get a QB. Because of the added value of a QB into picks, it could easily be their two firsts (21/22) for our #9 or #10. Usually we'd have to add one of our thirds to make up the value, but the QB need might offset that.

Would you guys take that? I'm thinking I would. Still have plenty of ammo to trade back up to around #15. Plus that extra high pick.

Obviously, still a lot to happen between now and then, but if teams like the Browns, Giants, Jets, etc. start a run and Buffalo has no FA answer like Cousins, I could see it happening similar to the Chiefs/Texans last year.

[big9erfan]

On 1/10/2018 at 1:32 PM, y2lamanaki said:

 

From the 49ers.com article:

"The San Francisco 49ers have swung another Draft Day deal. The 49ers have acquired Denver Broncos running back Kapri Bibbs and Denver's fifth round pick (177) in exchange for San Francisco's 2018 fourth round pick."

From the ESPN article:

"The San Francisco 49ers continued their wheeling and dealing Saturday, sending a 2018 fourth-round draft pick to the Denver Broncos in exchange for running back Kapri Bibbs and a fifth-round pick (No. 177 overall) this year."

Both articles you referenced noted the trade was for Bibbs and a 5th in the first paragraph. The impetus for the trade is 100% irrelevant. For the 7,424,589,543rd time, if the 49ers wanted to trade and acquire only Bibbs for a 4th, they could have. And it would have been a failure. But they didn't. They wisely got a 5th back, and they hit on that pick.

It is absolutely absurd that something this simple is either misunderstood, or deliberately argued out of a childish need to not be wrong.

Childish? Hmmm! Absolutely absurd? Hmmmm!  Really? You had to go there? One of my pet peeves these days is how everyone wants to turn everything into an “either/or” sort of thing where one side has to be right and the other wrong when, in fact, things are often much more gray than that.  Often both sides are little right, or a little wrong, or both perspectives have merit, or both can be simultaneously right and wrong when viewed from a different perspective. By now I would have thought that you would have realized that you and I view trades very differently. So differently that it might seem hard to reconcile those differences.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that either of us is being “absolutely absurd”, or that one of us is right and the other wrong. And it certainly doesn’t mean that when we defend our perspective that we are being “childish”.

For instance, I fully understand that, in some respects, any trade of picks that lands you better talent than the other team got can be called a good trade.  That allows for saying, in some respects, that trading a 7th rounder for a 1st rounder is a good trade once you've determined that the guy picked in the 7th is better than the guy picked in the first.  What's really childish though (from a football analysis perspective, not a personal perspective) is to think that this is the one and only one way to view such a trade when in fact there are lots of different ways to look at the trade.  It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a first rounder is intrinsically worth more than a 7th rounder (duh!) and so the trade was a bad trade no matter who the picks were used on. Do you see anything "absolutely absurd" in thinking that?  In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree to the general statement that "trading a 7th rounder for a first rounder is a good trade". It's not “absolutely absurd” to think that. It merely requires believing that high picks are more valuable than low picks. Once you plug in names though you are asking a completely different question, especially after you've seen them play. Comparing the value a particular player brings to a team is very different from comparing the potential value an as-yet un-named draft pick might bring to the team.  Another way to judge whether a trade is a good one is whether you would make it again if given the chance.  So let's suppose someone put a gun to your head the first time and you were forced to trade that first rounder for a seventh rounder.  And suppose you picked a better guy in the 7th than they picked in the first.  Does that mean you would happily trade another first for a seventh rounder if given the chance, or that you would seek out a chance to make that kind of trade? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I believe the answer is, "Of course not". And in saying that I think you would be saying it was not a good trade no matter how it worked out (else why wouldn't you do it every chance you got).

In exactly the same way I can easily believe that a high 4th is intrinsically worth more than a comp 5th (again, duh!). In fact, just as above, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree to the general statement that "trading a high 4^th for a comp 5^th is a good trade”. Ah, but we made that trade in order to get Bibbs.  So the question I’ve always considered in evaluating this trade is whether Bibbs was worth that kind of trade back or not. It has never mattered to me IN EVALUATING THE TRADE ITSELF, who the picks did or will turn into because every pick has some chance of being successful, or not. I’m happy, thrilled even, that our pick turned into Taylor.  But to me that is merely the salve that makes a bad trade more palatable, not the stuff that suddenly turns it into a good trade (in exactly the same way as the 1^st and 7^th round discussion above – choosing well did not, in some respects, make trading a 7^th rounder for a first rounder a good trade)

Based on that belief it's perfectly reasonable for me to think that trading a high 4th for a comp 5th is a bad trade unless you get something in return that meets or exceeds the value of the difference between those two picks (not depending on how the picks are used). It's also perfectly reasonable for me to have believed, and to still believe, that Bibbs does represent that amount of value.  Therefore it is, as you say, simple for me to believe trading a high 4th for a comp 5th and Bibbs was a bad trade - even though I now know that we got someone good with that 5th rounder.  Had someone taken Taylor before our turn rolled around we could just as easily have ended up with a bad player. Of the 10 or so guys picked ahead of Taylor 2 or 3 are out the NFL, 2 or 3 were on practice squads, 2 or 3 were on active rosters and produced next to nothing, one was a QB who ended the year with a rating of 38.  Any of those could well have been the lasting legacy of our trade instead of Taylor. OK, it wasn't.  But we only know that now, using hindsight. We had no way of knowing that when we made the trade. If you're evaluating the trade based on what you know at some time in the future then your criteria comes doewn to something like -it's a good trade if it works out well. That’s fine. Sometimes it’s fine to look at a trade that way. It’s just not the only way to look at. It's also not a particularly useful way for me to look at a trade I tend tyo want to evaluate trades based on what was known at the time the trade was made, not after I know who was picked or how good they turned out. That's the way a GM has to view a trade when they are considering making them, and that is the perspective I tend to use, though not always.. Using hindsigh is fine for a ffan but it's an utterly and completely useless way to look at it if you're a GM contemplating whether to make the trade or not. As a GM when thinking about whether a trade is a good one or not you don't have the luxury of seeing into the future.  I'm entitled to think it was a bad trade without needing to know who we picked, or how he worked out. And I’m entitled to have that opinion without it being called absolutely absurd,or being call childish for defending it.  It’s exactly the same way (in myway of thinking about it) as it reasonable for me to believe that trading a 1st rounder for a 7th rounder was a bad trade, no matter who was chosen with those picks. For that matter we still don't know who that 4th could have landed us next year.  It's extremely likely there will still be player available at that spot who turns out better than Taylor. So if we're going to us hindsight then let's wait to see who becomes a star from the bottom part of the draft so I can compare Bibbs and Taylor to that guy. I’m certainly not suggesting that, and it won’t change my opinion of the trade. I won’t think the trade a bad one if they choose a perennial All Pro, nor think it a good trade if they strike out with the pick.  Just pointing out that if we’re using hindsight on Taylor to be consistent we should wait to include the third piece of the trade.

Getting back to the final part of the second paragraph, I do believe it's a pretty telling sign of whether you think a trade is a good one if you would be willing to do it again.  So if someone offered us Bibbs and a comp 5th next year for our 2019 4th, would our management do that trade again? Don't know what you think, but I'm guessing there's a mighty good chance the answer would be "no".   And in saying that I think they would be saying it was not a good trade (else why wouldn't they trade down for Bibbs every chance they get?)

[big9erfan]

5 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

Looking at the value chart, team needs, and the upcoming class, I wonder if we might be a potential trade partner with Buffalo to get a QB. Because of the added value of a QB into picks, it could easily be their two firsts (21/22) for our #9 or #10. Usually we'd have to add one of our thirds to make up the value, but the QB need might offset that.

Would you guys take that? I'm thinking I would. Still have plenty of ammo to trade back up to around #15. Plus that extra high pick.

Obviously, still a lot to happen between now and then, but if teams like the Browns, Giants, Jets, etc. start a run and Buffalo has no FA answer like Cousins, I could see it happening similar to the Chiefs/Texans last year.

Buffalo is exactly who I was thinking about a few days ago. And my thinking about the value in the trade was the same as yours.  Trade chart be damnned. When a good QB is avaialble teams will often offer more than the chart shows. I've been thinking through whether there are a pair of guys I'd like to take at 21/22 that I feel better about than some of the individual players available at 9 or 10.

Two things - there are of course teams higher up that Buffalo might want to trade with. And I think I'd only do it if we could work out an even swap. I don't want to throw in a third and then another high pick to move up from 20 to 15. One draft cycle is precious little to go on but so far it looks like Lyunch and Shanny have a good eye for talent so I don't want to give up high picks.  That's also one of the reasons trading back to 21/22 is appealing.  WIth the way we picked last year maybe we might be able get a couple fo star players at 21/22 instead of just one at 9 or 10.

[big9erfan]

Saw a site that summarized a bunch of mock sites.  The most common pick for us was Quentin Nelson.  A couple more had Connor Williams both with the intention of playing him at G until he moves to tackle. In addition to Staley's age I have totally lost track of the fact that Brown becomes a fa next year.  Not too early at all for us to worry about tackles. Imagine we make  similar strides next year to this year and then Staley retires and Brown goes elsewhere as a FA.  Disaster!

[y2lamanaki]

38 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Childish? Hmmm! Absolutely absurd? Hmmmm!  Really? You had to go there? One of my pet peeves these days is how everyone wants to turn everything into an “either/or” sort of thing where one side has to be right and the other wrong when, in fact, things are often much more gray than that.  Often both sides are little right, or a little wrong, or both perspectives have merit, or both can be simultaneously right and wrong when viewed from a different perspective. By now I would have thought that you would have realized that you and I view trades very differently. So differently that it might seem hard to reconcile those differences.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that either of us is being “absolutely absurd”, or that one of us is right and the other wrong. And it certainly doesn’t mean that when we defend our perspective that we are being “childish”.

For instance, I fully understand that, in some respects, any trade of picks that lands you better talent than the other team got can be called a good trade.  That allows for saying, in some respects, that trading a 7th rounder for a 1st rounder is a good trade once you've determined that the guy picked in the 7th is better than the guy picked in the first.  What's really childish though (from a football analysis perspective, not a personal perspective) is to think that this is the one and only one way to view such a trade when in fact there are lots of different ways to look at the trade.  It's perfectly reasonable to believe that a first rounder is intrinsically worth more than a 7th rounder (duh!) and so the trade was a bad trade no matter who the picks were used on. Do you see anything "absolutely absurd" in thinking that?  In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree to the general statement that "trading a 7th rounder for a first rounder is a good trade". It's not “absolutely absurd” to think that. It merely requires believing that high picks are more valuable than low picks. Once you plug in names though you are asking a completely different question, especially after you've seen them play. Comparing the value a particular player brings to a team is very different from comparing the potential value an as-yet un-named draft pick might bring to the team.  Another way to judge whether a trade is a good one is whether you would make it again if given the chance.  So let's suppose someone put a gun to your head the first time and you were forced to trade that first rounder for a seventh rounder.  And suppose you picked a better guy in the 7th than they picked in the first.  Does that mean you would happily trade another first for a seventh rounder if given the chance, or that you would seek out a chance to make that kind of trade? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I believe the answer is, "Of course not". And in saying that I think you would be saying it was not a good trade no matter how it worked out (else why wouldn't you do it every chance you got).

In exactly the same way I can easily believe that a high 4th is intrinsically worth more than a comp 5th (again, duh!). In fact, just as above, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would agree to the general statement that "trading a high 4^th for a comp 5^th is a good trade”. Ah, but we made that trade in order to get Bibbs.  So the question I’ve always considered in evaluating this trade is whether Bibbs was worth that kind of trade back or not. It has never mattered to me IN EVALUATING THE TRADE ITSELF, who the picks did or will turn into because every pick has some chance of being successful, or not. I’m happy, thrilled even, that our pick turned into Taylor.  But to me that is merely the salve that makes a bad trade more palatable, not the stuff that suddenly turns it into a good trade (in exactly the same way as the 1^st and 7^th round discussion above – choosing well did not, in some respects, make trading a 7^th rounder for a first rounder a good trade)

Based on that belief it's perfectly reasonable for me to think that trading a high 4th for a comp 5th is a bad trade unless you get something in return that meets or exceeds the value of the difference between those two picks (not depending on how the picks are used). It's also perfectly reasonable for me to have believed, and to still believe, that Bibbs does represent that amount of value.  Therefore it is, as you say, simple for me to believe trading a high 4th for a comp 5th and Bibbs was a bad trade - even though I now know that we got someone good with that 5th rounder.  Had someone taken Taylor before our turn rolled around we could just as easily have ended up with a bad player. Of the 10 or so guys picked ahead of Taylor 2 or 3 are out the NFL, 2 or 3 were on practice squads, 2 or 3 were on active rosters and produced next to nothing, one was a QB who ended the year with a rating of 38.  Any of those could well have been the lasting legacy of our trade instead of Taylor. OK, it wasn't.  But we only know that now, using hindsight. We had no way of knowing that when we made the trade. If you're evaluating the trade based on what you know at some time in the future then your criteria comes doewn to something like -it's a good trade if it works out well. That’s fine. Sometimes it’s fine to look at a trade that way. It’s just not the only way to look at. It's also not a particularly useful way for me to look at a trade I tend tyo want to evaluate trades based on what was known at the time the trade was made, not after I know who was picked or how good they turned out. That's the way a GM has to view a trade when they are considering making them, and that is the perspective I tend to use, though not always.. Using hindsigh is fine for a ffan but it's an utterly and completely useless way to look at it if you're a GM contemplating whether to make the trade or not. As a GM when thinking about whether a trade is a good one or not you don't have the luxury of seeing into the future.  I'm entitled to think it was a bad trade without needing to know who we picked, or how he worked out. And I’m entitled to have that opinion without it being called absolutely absurd,or being call childish for defending it.  It’s exactly the same way (in myway of thinking about it) as it reasonable for me to believe that trading a 1st rounder for a 7th rounder was a bad trade, no matter who was chosen with those picks. For that matter we still don't know who that 4th could have landed us next year.  It's extremely likely there will still be player available at that spot who turns out better than Taylor. So if we're going to us hindsight then let's wait to see who becomes a star from the bottom part of the draft so I can compare Bibbs and Taylor to that guy. I’m certainly not suggesting that, and it won’t change my opinion of the trade. I won’t think the trade a bad one if they choose a perennial All Pro, nor think it a good trade if they strike out with the pick.  Just pointing out that if we’re using hindsight on Taylor to be consistent we should wait to include the third piece of the trade.

Getting back to the final part of the second paragraph, I do believe it's a pretty telling sign of whether you think a trade is a good one if you would be willing to do it again.  So if someone offered us Bibbs and a comp 5th next year for our 2019 4th, would our management do that trade again? Don't know what you think, but I'm guessing there's a mighty good chance the answer would be "no".   And in saying that I think they would be saying it was not a good trade (else why wouldn't they trade down for Bibbs every chance they get?)

I'm not reading this. The trade was for Bibbs and a 5th. That 5th turned into Trent Taylor. That trade benefited the 49ers in 2017 in a way that would have otherwise been impossible. Very simple. End of story.

[big9erfan]

Daft wire has a 4 round mock with us getting - Landry, Donte Pettis, Mason Cole, Quenton Meeks and mark Walton

Walter has us with Nelson, Christian Kirk, JC Jackson and Marcel Frasier

[Forge]

5 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Daft wire has a 4 round mock with us getting - Landry, Donte Pettis, Mason Cole, Quenton Meeks and mark Walton

Walter has us with Nelson, Christian Kirk, JC Jackson and Marcel Frasier

Harold Landry isn't worth a top 10 pick in my opinion, so I wouldn't like that. 

I actually haven't minded most of Walter's mocks for us so far this year, though Charlie Campbell has us taking Derwin James, which I just don't see right now. 

[big9erfan]

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

 

 

[big9erfan]

6 minutes ago, Forge said:

Harold Landry isn't worth a top 10 pick in my opinion, so I wouldn't like that. 

I actually haven't minded most of Walter's mocks for us so far this year, though Charlie Campbell has us taking Derwin James, which I just don't see right now. 

Yeah.  I'm not crazy about Landry. Sure wish this was a year when  there were several good looking edge prospects out there. Maybe there's a gem a bit further down in the draft.

[48 1/2ers]

[burlow]

I know that it is not this draft but our WR crush from last year in Corey Davis just had one hell of a snag for the first points in the Ten Vs NE game.