49ers Select Mike McGlinchey, OT, Notre Dame #9 Overall

[Chrissooner49er]

Just watched that NFLN interview with Lynch. He said that any trades would have to wait until Chicago's pick was announced because any trade was contingent on whether or not McGlinchey was there. If he was, there would be no trade. I have no issue with this at all. After getting over the initial shock, I really like this pick. Protect your investment (Jimmy) with not only talent, but intelligent team players...not certain Trent Brown fit that entire description. Additionally, Kyle really likes the way Mike run blocks. That is a liability with Brown, remember? Hopefully, he will succeed with the Pats. They obviously had concerns about him as a 9er for the future.

[big9erfan]

6 hours ago, Chrissooner49er said:

Just watched that NFLN interview with Lynch. He said that any trades would have to wait until Chicago's pick was announced because any trade was contingent on whether or not McGlinchey was there. If he was, there would be no trade. I have no issue with this at all. After getting over the initial shock, I really like this pick. Protect your investment (Jimmy) with not only talent, but intelligent team players...not certain Trent Brown fit that entire description. Additionally, Kyle really likes the way Mike run blocks. That is a liability with Brown, remember? Hopefully, he will succeed with the Pats. They obviously had concerns about him as a 9er for the future.

Yeah that's what he said. He said tthey fielded a lot of calls but that they would wait until the 8th pick to see if McG was still there and that they had previously decicded that they would take him if he was there. So of course they didn't hang up on people. But that's not the same as actually having any dialog about the pick - other than if "our guy" is gone, then call back and we'll talk about it.

 I appear to be the only one here that does have a problem with that.  I think I'll do an alaternate draft to demonstrate why I think you have to listen to and consider every offer rather than just taking the guy you like most.

[rudyZ]

30 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Yeah that's what he said. He said tthey fielded a lot of calls but that they would wait until the 8th pick to see if McG was still there and that they had previously decicded that they would take him if he was there. So of course they didn't hang up on people. But that's not the same as actually having any dialog about the pick - other than if "our guy" is gone, then call back and we'll talk about it.

 I appear to be the only one here that does have a problem with that.  I think I'll do an alaternate draft to demonstrate why I think you have to listen to and consider every offer rather than just taking the guy you like most.

But the thing is, there probably wasn't going to be such a great offer that Lynch would have taken over McG. Everybody in the league knows the likely parameters of such trades. If the raiders were calling, they were offering such and such. If the Lions were calling, they would be offering such and such. Sure, if the other guy says "My offer is going to blow everyone else's out of the water", then you have to listen to it. But if they're dangling what you're not willing to pass on your guy for, then there's no real discussion there. They probably had these discussions before the pick, not necessarily during our selection window. So Lynch knew what other teams were willing to give up, and he had already made up his mind that it wasn't worth losing McG over.

And I know you like to group a bunch of prospects and you say they have a relatively equal chance of success in the NFL, and GMs should be dispassionate, and blah blah blah. But that's not reality. That's idealized, that's hypothetical... that's fiction. It just doesn't happen. You don't just grab one of a group and figure he has just as good a chance as the other guy. When you're a GM, you always think the guy you're picking is better than the next guy. If you don't, you probably didn't study these guys enough. There's always someone better than the others. Of course, you're not always right, but it's your job to try to be. If any given prospect as a 1 in 5 chance of being a solid pro, then your job as a GM is to try to be 1 in 4 or better. If you're 1 in 6, you should get fired. But you're basically saying that you should just pick any one of the 5, because their chances are equal. If you do that dispassionately, you'll get an outcome of exactly 1 in 5. In the meantime, better GMs will go 1 in 4, and their teams are going to be better than yours. 

[big9erfan]

ut the thing is, there probably wasn't going to be such a great offer that Lynch would have taken over McG

2 hours ago, rudyZ said:

B. Everybody in the league knows the likely parameters of such trades. If the raiders were calling, they were offering such and such. If the Lions were calling, they would be offering such and such. Sure, if the other guy says "My offer is going to blow everyone else's out of the water", then you have to listen to it. But if they're dangling what you're not willing to pass on your guy for, then there's no real discussion there. They probably had these discussions before the pick, not necessarily during our selection window. So Lynch knew what other teams were willing to give up, and he had already made up his mind that it wasn't worth losing McG over.

And I know you like to group a bunch of prospects and you say they have a relatively equal chance of success in the NFL, and GMs should be dispassionate, and blah blah blah. But that's not reality. That's idealized, that's hypothetical... that's fiction. It just doesn't happen. You don't just grab one of a group and figure he has just as good a chance as the other guy. When you're a GM, you always think the guy you're picking is better than the next guy. If you don't, you probably didn't study these guys enough. There's always someone better than the others. Of course, you're not always right, but it's your job to try to be. If any given prospect as a 1 in 5 chance of being a solid pro, then your job as a GM is to try to be 1 in 4 or better. If you're 1 in 6, you should get fired. But you're basically saying that you should just pick any one of the 5, because their chances are equal. If you do that dispassionately, you'll get an outcome of exactly 1 in 5. In the meantime, better GMs will go 1 in 4, and their teams are going to be better than yours. 

Every time I metion that beyond the first few picks teams cannot accurately differeniate between guys rated about equally you react like my saying that is the dumbest thing you've ever hear. I think the evidence is abundant. It's clear. It's convincing. It's so overwhelming that I believe it's a simply a fact that teams cannot make those kinds of distinctions with any degree of accuracy. Now, since you've told me I'm wrong virtually every time I say this, I would honestly love to know what evidence you have that I'm wrong. Even the smallest, littlest shred of evidence would help me understand why you reject what seems so utterly obvious to me. And it's not just me. Lots of studies have been done on this subject over the course of the past several years. I've quoted those studies and provided links to them in the past. So I'm not going to do that again. If they are all wrong then so be it. But before I reject every study on this subject that I've ever seen I would like to know what makes you so sure they are all wrong. I can't even understand thinking teams can do this kind of thing accurately even if you haven't read the studies. Lots of first round picks do not become even solid starters. Some are busts. There's only a 50-50 chance of getting a solid starter with 2nd round pick. It's not like the evaluation procees is just a little off. It's off by a HUGE amount.  How many other  endeavors are there where a 50% failure rate is considered OK? And how many endeavors ahve a 50% failure rate where people are totally unwilling to wonder if there's not a better way. 

The question is - does it matter? Of course - because if teams would accept that two guys rated about equal, outside of the top of the draft, are equally likely to succeed then they have chance to increase their overall value in the draft by never trading up to take their preference of between two such guys, and by looking for opportunities to trade down, especially when staying withing that window of "about equally rated" guys. If they've ruled out (for the right reasons) doing anything other than taking a guy at some position the of course they should take the guy they have rated highest at that position. They should also look at postional value and postional needs. Again if two guys are rated about equally and therefore have the same chance of success then they should definitely consider which posiotn brings more value to the team.

Finally I don't believe what I'm saying is either "idealized" or ":hypothetical". I believe New England is already practicing this approach. If you look closely at New England's drafting over the past few years I think you'll find a whole lot of what I'm talking about. This year for instance they traded 41 for 53 plus another pick. They traded 105 for 114 and an additional pick. They traded 198 for 233 and 243 (the lower you go in the draft the biiger than bands get of "about equally rated guys).  They traded 233 for 250 and a future pick. They trade 114 for a future third which will end up being much higher than 114. Notice something?  That is an entire series of moves where they traded down slightly - staying within that window where one guy is as likley to succeed as one you could get a few picks later, to get an extra pick. I find it highly likely that they fully understand that the probability of success for those few spots they moved back is identical to the spot they moved out of. By "settling for the lower pick" -precisely what you suggesed an idealized fiction they got  "free extra value".Free because they did not reduce their chances of success by moving dowen a few spots.  How they draft is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. 

[Ronnie's Pinky]

41 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Every time I metion that beyond the first few picks teams cannot accurately differeniate between guys rated about equally you react like my saying that is the dumbest thing you've ever hear. I think the evidence is abundant. It's clear. It's convincing. It's so overwhelming that I believe it's a simply a fact that teams cannot make those kinds of distinctions with any degree of accuracy.

I remember Bill Walsh. Don't tell me some guys aren't just plain better at spotting talent than others, at least for a given system.

Kyle's got a reputation for having tackles and wide receivers do very well on his watch. I'm willing to entertain the notion that he's unusually good at spotting talent that will work in his own system, as Walsh was. On defense, the team is prolly just throwing darts, but on offense I see a deeper design coming together.

[y2lamanaki]

6 hours ago, big9erfan said:

Every time I metion that beyond the first few picks teams cannot accurately differeniate between guys rated about equally you react like my saying that is the dumbest thing you've ever hear. I think the evidence is abundant. It's clear. It's convincing. It's so overwhelming that I believe it's a simply a fact that teams cannot make those kinds of distinctions with any degree of accuracy. Now, since you've told me I'm wrong virtually every time I say this, I would honestly love to know what evidence you have that I'm wrong. Even the smallest, littlest shred of evidence would help me understand why you reject what seems so utterly obvious to me. And it's not just me. Lots of studies have been done on this subject over the course of the past several years. I've quoted those studies and provided links to them in the past. So I'm not going to do that again. If they are all wrong then so be it. But before I reject every study on this subject that I've ever seen I would like to know what makes you so sure they are all wrong. I can't even understand thinking teams can do this kind of thing accurately even if you haven't read the studies. Lots of first round picks do not become even solid starters. Some are busts. There's only a 50-50 chance of getting a solid starter with 2nd round pick. It's not like the evaluation procees is just a little off. It's off by a HUGE amount.  How many other  endeavors are there where a 50% failure rate is considered OK? And how many endeavors ahve a 50% failure rate where people are totally unwilling to wonder if there's not a better way. 

The question is - does it matter? Of course - because if teams would accept that two guys rated about equal, outside of the top of the draft, are equally likely to succeed then they have chance to increase their overall value in the draft by never trading up to take their preference of between two such guys, and by looking for opportunities to trade down, especially when staying withing that window of "about equally rated" guys. If they've ruled out (for the right reasons) doing anything other than taking a guy at some position the of course they should take the guy they have rated highest at that position. They should also look at postional value and postional needs. Again if two guys are rated about equally and therefore have the same chance of success then they should definitely consider which posiotn brings more value to the team.

Finally I don't believe what I'm saying is either "idealized" or ":hypothetical". I believe New England is already practicing this approach. If you look closely at New England's drafting over the past few years I think you'll find a whole lot of what I'm talking about. This year for instance they traded 41 for 53 plus another pick. They traded 105 for 114 and an additional pick. They traded 198 for 233 and 243 (the lower you go in the draft the biiger than bands get of "about equally rated guys).  They traded 233 for 250 and a future pick. They trade 114 for a future third which will end up being much higher than 114. Notice something?  That is an entire series of moves where they traded down slightly - staying within that window where one guy is as likley to succeed as one you could get a few picks later, to get an extra pick. I find it highly likely that they fully understand that the probability of success for those few spots they moved back is identical to the spot they moved out of. By "settling for the lower pick" -precisely what you suggesed an idealized fiction they got  "free extra value".Free because they did not reduce their chances of success by moving dowen a few spots.  How they draft is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. 

I think the reason we react like this is dumb because of how rigidly you try and apply it without using any logic. If teams cannot accurately differentiate between players, then they cannot accurately differentiate between groups of players. Because if Prospect A is a superstar and Prospect B is a bust who will be out of the league in 3 years, then your logic says if both are on the board, you should not take Prospect A over Prospect B, you should trade down and hope that Prospect B is still going to be there, because you just can't tell who's going to be better. 

And in groups, if Prospect A is a superstar, Prospect B is a total bust, Prospect C is another bust, Prospect D will be a roleplayer, Prospect E will be a good player, Prospect F is a bust, Prospect G is a bust, Prospect H is a roleplayer, Prospect I is a career backup, Prospect J is a star, and Prospect K is a bust, where exactly does that line get drawn? And if you can't differentiate between two prospects, how do you ever draw a line? Is the line between G and H? Between H and I? All 10? Between E and F? What if when you pick, the only prospect left in this group is Prospect J? Do you pick Prospect J, or because you can't actually differentiate between Prospect J and Prospect L, do you trade down? At what point do you actually make a pick? Aren't you always choosing one prospect over another, and if that other prospect is there, shouldn't you trade down?

The thing about that last scenario - we came out before the draft and said we had 30 guys as first round prospects. Going into Day 2, it was very likely that a few of those guys we had pegged as first round talents fell into Day 2. We were rumored to be interested in both Sutton and Landry at #9, and both were available. Shortly after both of those two were drafted, we made a trade up the board for Pettis. How do you know Pettis wasn't one of the ones that received a first round grade, and specifically that he wasn't the last prospect remaining with a first round grade? If it's best to differentiate in groups, and Pettis is the last remaining guy in a group, isn't it a good move to go up and get him? If not, then what's the point of grouping them? If in the top group, we had Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, and then McGlinchey - and that's it - do you think they still should have listened to trades at pick #9?

[JIllg]

18 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

I think the reason we react like this is dumb because of how rigidly you try and apply it without using any logic. If teams cannot accurately differentiate between players, then they cannot accurately differentiate between groups of players. Because if Prospect A is a superstar and Prospect B is a bust who will be out of the league in 3 years, then your logic says if both are on the board, you should not take Prospect A over Prospect B, you should trade down and hope that Prospect B is still going to be there, because you just can't tell who's going to be better. 

And in groups, if Prospect A is a superstar, Prospect B is a total bust, Prospect C is another bust, Prospect D will be a roleplayer, Prospect E will be a good player, Prospect F is a bust, Prospect G is a bust, Prospect H is a roleplayer, Prospect I is a career backup, Prospect J is a star, and Prospect K is a bust, where exactly does that line get drawn? And if you can't differentiate between two prospects, how do you ever draw a line? Is the line between G and H? Between H and I? All 10? Between E and F? What if when you pick, the only prospect left in this group is Prospect J? Do you pick Prospect J, or because you can't actually differentiate between Prospect J and Prospect L, do you trade down? At what point do you actually make a pick? Aren't you always choosing one prospect over another, and if that other prospect is there, shouldn't you trade down?

The thing about that last scenario - we came out before the draft and said we had 30 guys as first round prospects. Going into Day 2, it was very likely that a few of those guys we had pegged as first round talents fell into Day 2. We were rumored to be interested in both Sutton and Landry at #9, and both were available. Shortly after both of those two were drafted, we made a trade up the board for Pettis. How do you know Pettis wasn't one of the ones that received a first round grade, and specifically that he wasn't the last prospect remaining with a first round grade? If it's best to differentiate in groups, and Pettis is the last remaining guy in a group, isn't it a good move to go up and get him? If not, then what's the point of grouping them? If in the top group, we had Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, and then McGlinchey - and that's it - do you think they still should have listened to trades at pick #9?

And if no lines should be drawn because all prospects are relatively likely to bust, the optimal strategy would be to trade down for something like all of the 7th round picks. Roster carrying limitations mean that one's hope of holding players until you can tell which of these 32 is the breakout star amongst the chaff is really difficult and you're unlikely to be able to give all of them enough practice and game time to sort out which players are useful and which aren't. 

[big9erfan]

11 hours ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

I remember Bill Walsh. Don't tell me some guys aren't just plain better at spotting talent than others, at least for a given system.

Kyle's got a reputation for having tackles and wide receivers do very well on his watch. I'm willing to entertain the notion that he's unusually good at spotting talent that will work in his own system, as Walsh was. On defense, the team is prolly just throwing darts, but on offense I see a deeper design coming together.

I don't know if there are any GMs that consistently make better picks than other GMs. A year or two, even a little more can be just luck. I mean somebody out there has to end up with a better draft than other guys. But is there anyone out there that does year after year consistently over a long time? Maybe, but there sue as heck aren't many.  But the important thing here is that it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about comparing his ability to rate guys against other GM's ability to do that. I'm talking about his ability to differentiate between guys he rates. In other words if there is a guiy that is truly better at evaluating talent then his group of guys that he rates about equally will be a stronger group than other GMs will identify. So when he picks from that group it will often be a better pick than guys who have done a worse job at identifying that group of players they pick from.  It doesn't mean that even that good talent evaluator can successfully differentiate between his own list of players he thinks are about equal.

Man I wish I could remember who I heard talking about this in the leadup to the draft. If was a either a current or former GM.  What he said was that is is hard enough to rank guys within a position, especially once you get past the first few that really stand out.  Then he specifically said something I've always said - across positions and beyond the handful of top guys it's really, really had to differentiate between guys.  He said something like "it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the 5th best G and the 6th best CB" (Those might not be the numbers or the positions, but that's the gist of it). That's kind of what I'm saying in all this.

[JIllg]

1 hour ago, big9erfan said:

I don't know if there are any GMs that consistently make better picks than other GMs. A year or two, even a little more can be just luck. I mean somebody out there has to end up with a better draft than other guys. But is there anyone out there that does year after year consistently over a long time? Maybe, but there sue as heck aren't many.  But the important thing here is that it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about comparing his ability to rate guys against other GM's ability to do that. I'm talking about his ability to differentiate between guys he rates. In other words if there is a guiy that is truly better at evaluating talent then his group of guys that he rates about equally will be a stronger group than other GMs will identify. So when he picks from that group it will often be a better pick than guys who have done a worse job at identifying that group of players they pick from.  It doesn't mean that even that good talent evaluator can successfully differentiate between his own list of players he thinks are about equal.

Man I wish I could remember who I heard talking about this in the leadup to the draft. If was a either a current or former GM.  What he said was that is is hard enough to rank guys within a position, especially once you get past the first few that really stand out.  Then he specifically said something I've always said - across positions and beyond the handful of top guys it's really, really had to differentiate between guys.  He said something like "it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the 5th best G and the 6th best CB" (Those might not be the numbers or the positions, but that's the gist of it). That's kind of what I'm saying in all this.

And it's a very fair point. But the counterpoint that there are players that profile as more likely to succeed and are worth spending more draft capital on is also valid and isn't manifest stupidity as you sometimes seem to be insinuating. The process of telling the two apart is its own science. You are also correct that sometimes teams could be accused of being ignorant of the actual value calculations that they are making and living with when they intuitively make decisions on prospects. Those decisions should be examined and questioned. But that doesn't mean that every trade back is right and every trade forward wrong.

[48 1/2ers]

Do you think we sacrificed the Trent Brown trade because we wanted to be so low key about our interest in McGlinchey? 

[Forge]

12 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

Do you think we sacrificed the Trent Brown trade because we wanted to be so low key about our interest in McGlinchey? 

You mean in terms of value back? I don't think so. The idea of getting a second back was always a pipedream. You look at some of the offensive linemen trades recently, and they have not yielded the greatest value back. Brown has some questions, last year of his deal, and we wanted to move him

[big9erfan]

5 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

I think the reason we react like this is dumb because of how rigidly you try and apply it without using any logic. If teams cannot accurately differentiate between players, then they cannot accurately differentiate between groups of players. Because if Prospect A is a superstar and Prospect B is a bust who will be out of the league in 3 years, then your logic says if both are on the board, you should not take Prospect A over Prospect B, you should trade down and hope that Prospect B is still going to be there, because you just can't tell who's going to be better. 

And in groups, if Prospect A is a superstar, Prospect B is a total bust, Prospect C is another bust, Prospect D will be a roleplayer, Prospect E will be a good player, Prospect F is a bust, Prospect G is a bust, Prospect H is a roleplayer, Prospect I is a career backup, Prospect J is a star, and Prospect K is a bust, where exactly does that line get drawn? And if you can't differentiate between two prospects, how do you ever draw a line? Is the line between G and H? Between H and I? All 10? Between E and F? What if when you pick, the only prospect left in this group is Prospect J? Do you pick Prospect J, or because you can't actually differentiate between Prospect J and Prospect L, do you trade down? At what point do you actually make a pick? Aren't you always choosing one prospect over another, and if that other prospect is there, shouldn't you trade down?

The thing about that last scenario - we came out before the draft and said we had 30 guys as first round prospects. Going into Day 2, it was very likely that a few of those guys we had pegged as first round talents fell into Day 2. We were rumored to be interested in both Sutton and Landry at #9, and both were available. Shortly after both of those two were drafted, we made a trade up the board for Pettis. How do you know Pettis wasn't one of the ones that received a first round grade, and specifically that he wasn't the last prospect remaining with a first round grade? If it's best to differentiate in groups, and Pettis is the last remaining guy in a group, isn't it a good move to go up and get him? If not, then what's the point of grouping them? If in the top group, we had Barkley, Nelson, Chubb, and then McGlinchey - and that's it - do you think they still should have listened to trades at pick #9?

Thanks for reading thorugh these ideas and responding.All your criticisms are completely valid. I wouldn't argue against any point you're making, - except to say that logic is precisely what I am trying to add to the process. Remember though what I'm suggesting a here is a general principle - purusing overall value in the draft, rather than specific players.  I understand completely that this general priniciple is lacking in any details of how to put it inot action. But often times it's better to give and example rather than an explantion. So let me just say what I'm suggesting is not fiction or theoretical, or some overly rigid abstract idea that can't be put into affect in the real world. On the contrary it is being done by the best franchis in all of football. My reason for even talking about it is that I was hoping for a more enlightened approach from out mamagement instead of what they showed us in this draft.

So, NE moved from 43 to 49 for an extra pick. Didn't they have an "our guy" at 43 or were they seeking extra value? They traded pick 51 for a future second plus an extra pick;  Were they lacking an "our guy" at 51 or were they seeking additional value? They traded from 105 to 114  for an extra pick. Were they lacking an "our guy" or seeking additional value? They traded 114 for a future 3rd. Whoa. 100% guarantee of additional value since that pick will be much higher than the one they traded away. Did they not have anyone they wanted there or were they prioritizing the additional value a much higher pick would provide them.  They traded 198 for 233 an extra pick.  Finally they traded 243 for 250 and an extra pick. Notice also that the deeper in the draft they went the further they were willing to move back - which coincides with those groups of guys that are about equal being bigger the further you go into a draft.

That might be all I would need to point out to demonstate that at least one team out there is seeking value rather than specific players, except they did make one trade up. On the surface your first reaction might be that a move up contradicts what I'm proposing. But I think it is actually  the exeption that proves the rule. They had a pick at 51 and wanted a CB. There were five "solid prospects" available. They must have at least thought that one was better than the others. Almost everyone here has suggested that when you identify "your guy" you should just take him, and that's ti's stupid to "settle" for whoever other teams pass on. So at 51 they could have had their preference out of all 5 of them .If CBs started going they had no way of knowing if their preferred guy would be left.  But they didn't choose their preferred guy; any way; they traded down.  But then a CB went at 53 and another at 55. At that point they traded up to 56 and took one of the remaining good prospects. This is exactly a case of forgoing your preference from among a group of roughly equal guys at 51 to pick up extra value. In the process they took a risk that their preferrred guy, or even none would be left when their turn at 63 rolled around. But when the run started they acted immediately to move up and ensure getting one of the remaining good prospects. Who knows? Maybe they were lucky and it turned out to be the one they wanted most. But two went in the three picks just before the spot they moved up to. So they might well have "settled" for one that was still left. In any case they clearly weren't worried about doing that because 5 picks earlier they traded down.,  I think their moves demonstrate a team focused completely on overall value forgoing the gratification of being able to say they got "their guy" for the thigher goal of getting as much value as possible out ot the draft.

[rudyZ]

@big9erfan, honestly, I didn't read your response. Not because I don't believe it deserves a response, but because I'm just too tired tonight, and by the time I have the time to get around to it, it will be buried far into this thread. For the record, I don't think what you're saying is dumb at all. In a vacuum, you're probably right. My point is that you can't erase the human aspect of it. You have a statistical approach, a very moneyball way of doing thing. It has its merits, but the reality of humans running drafts is that they are going to make human decisions. As a fan, you can make that evaluation, but when you're in staff meetings, when you're in the war room, that's not how human do things. People are biased. They can't help it.

Also, by doing what you suggest, you'd merely be playing the odds. A great draft beats the odds. Sure, you can't do it 15 years in a row. You'll have a great draft, a terrible one, a decent one, another great one, and so forth. In the end, for all I know, maybe it evens out to exactly what playing the odds would achieve. The exception being that one great draft can instantly make you a contender. Consistently churning out good drafts might not be enough. 

I don't know. Good night! And as a reminder: never said what you said was dumb. I just don't believe it works out as well as you think it does.

[48 1/2ers]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

You mean in terms of value back? I don't think so. The idea of getting a second back was always a pipedream. You look at some of the offensive linemen trades recently, and they have not yielded the greatest value back. Brown has some questions, last year of his deal, and we wanted to move him

How could we have even shopped him without turning teams onto to the idea that we were going after McGlinchey?

[rudyZ]

2 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

How could we have even shopped him without turning teams onto to the idea that we were going after McGlinchey?

By offering him to teams that didn't care whether we picked McG or not? Trading Brown to the Pats, for instance. What are they going to do about us drafting McG? Object? Tell on us? Trade up to 8 and pick him before us?