Jump to content

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


y2lamanaki

Recommended Posts

Brown is really good at what he does, and while the shoulder injury is an issue, the prognosis for recovery from labrum tears is generally quite good. He's very cheap this year, and there's a strong chance he gets paid next offseason...I mean paid enough to generate a comp. pick in the 3rd/4th round. The fact that he is valuable enough to generate a day 2 comp. pick for whichever team owns him if he leaves in free agency raises his present value, especially to an organization like the Patriots that is rarely active in free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PapaShogun said:

Funny enough Brown as a pass protector would probably be more valuable in 2017 against the AFC West and Rams new nasty duo.

Rams edge rushers aren't that great, they will wreck more havoc on the inside with Darnold/Suh.

But as for the AFC West? Absolutely. He'd fare MUCH better against the likes of Miller/Mack than McGlinchey will in year one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Brown will probably be used at swing tackle for the last year of his deal. He's more valuable as a backup in that role, then trying to trade for him. Because no one will trade for him unless they're desperate. You'd be getting a poor conditioned tackle with a shoulder issue on the last year of his deal, who is only good in pass pro. Is that worth a 5th? 49ers probably don't bite, because they don't want to be in a situation again where they have to play someone like Beadles at tackle.

Dont forget we resigned Gilliam. 

right now our tackles are Staley, Brown, McGlinchey, Gilliam, Beadles, and Magnuson (perhaps a Guard)

I can definitely see a scenerio where we keep Brown, but man he's gonna be pissed we just drafted his replacement and he's gotta play the entire season with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

Dont forget we resigned Gilliam. 

right now our tackles are Staley, Brown, McGlinchey, Gilliam, Beadles, and Magnuson (perhaps a Guard)

I can definitely see a scenerio where we keep Brown, but man he's gonna be pissed we just drafted his replacement and he's gotta play the entire season with him. 

Haha. Oh yeah the Seattle castaway. We're saved! 

Gilliam be like:

you-must-be-truly-desperate-to-come-to-m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Meh...based on what, amateur mock drafts? The "experts" don't know a thing; you know that Forge. The last time the 49ers "reached" on a guy this high, it was Aldon, who was a great player before the bottle sucked him in (a problem he developed in the pros, not college). Sounds like the Raiders were hot for McGlinchey at #10, and they did just draft an OT at #15, so we know they were looking hard at that position. So it looks like at least two teams thought he was a top-10 talent.

Need to stay humble when it comes to the draft, and remember that we know f-all about these players. If McGlinchey ends up being good, then it was a good pick. It's not like the team is set for years at tackle, and it's a position that takes a year or so for the transition to the pros, anyway.

There are a bunch of guys that do big boards and mocks that have run drafts, been scouts, and/or been in draft rooms. You just need to sort out the good, knowledgable guys from the talking heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

I think one thing this pick shows is that the FO is not building for this season with the plan of being a contender. This is a classic "long game" pick. That doesn't mean it will work out; McGlinchey could suck, but it does tell you that Kyle and John are punting on being a contender this season (which I think is wise), and looking further down the road.

After coming back here today I've realized this is one of the reasons for my strong reaction to the pick. I think there are other guys just as good that could have helped the team more this year, and of course also addressed long term needs . I've  explained in the past my impatience about "re-building". I want results right away. Now if McG was clearly the BPA and we reached for guy that was not as good just to fill a need that would be different, and not what I would want. But this looks almost the other way around. I don't think most experts had McG rated this highly, and a few who did changed their rating just in the past few days which probably reflects leaks about what teams were interested in him. In any case I doubt anyone would disagree that this is a terrible year for OTs and that being the best tackle available this year is not saying very much. In other tackle-rich years I think McG would go much lower. Maybe I'm wrong about that and he would be a top-6 non-QB in any year. In that case, good pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

Okay, give this pick a B now. Though not convinced it made the team better for next season. 

Still not going any higher than a C. Too high of a reach for me. He's not a top 10 player in this draft, and I think Minkah has a similar profile as a high character, high floor prospect, but a much higher ceiling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Forge said:

Still not going any higher than a C. Too high of a reach for me. He's not a top 10 player in this draft, and I think Minkah has a similar profile as a high character, high floor prospect, but a much higher ceiling. 

To me it wasn't about him being a reach. For most he was a top 15 prospect. The player himself is fine, I just hated getting him when for next season we already had Staley/Brown. Now that Brown is traded and it was clear McGlinchey was going to play from day one, then it is a solid pick. I'd have preferred Landry and James, but didn't know about Landry having some medical red flags. There may have been better talents available, but this ended up being a need so it's okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Forge said:

This is fair...because I agree the Raiders would have taken him. So at least 2 teams had that type of grade on him. It just didn't match up with the draftniks. 

Everyone talks about not reaching for guys.  But in every draft there are positions that are strong and positions that are weak. But some teams always need guys at that position that is weak. If  they have the time and patience, and lack an immediate need, they can often wait to take a guy high the following year in hopes it will be a better year for that position. Or, they can acknowledge that there is no one in that position group worth a top 10 pick and target one lower. That guy will have lower potential but be better value., Taking the best guy there is at a position does not always provide you good value. Yesterday McG was the 6th non-QB selected.  Was there anyone at all who was talking about him like he was one of the best players in the draft?  Was there anyone at all who was comparing him to some of the other top tackles taken in previous drafts? The fact that some team did in fact take him high does not mean he was worth taking high. Although many of us did not see this as a need, the team obviously did. In which case this smacks to me a bit of reaching to fill a need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

To me it wasn't about him being a reach. For most he was a top 15 prospect. The player himself is fine, I just hated getting him when for next season we already had Staley/Brown. Now that Brown is traded and it was clear McGlinchey was going to play from day one, then it is a solid pick. I'd have preferred Landry and James, but didn't know about Landry having some medical red flags. There may have been better talents available, but this ended up being a need so it's okay. 

Absolutely fair. But I can only judge based on where I have him, not so much every one else. Mayock had him top 10...how much of that was the rumors that he coudl go top ten leading up to the draft? I don't know. Could have affected it, may not have. Kiper had him at 22, and he wasn't the top tackle. I agree with the overall placement, but I hated Kolton Miller's tape, so definitely had McGlinchey as the number one tackle. Draft tek had him 17, which I think is fair. A big problem for me is that I just don't see tremendous upside with McGlinchey, which is one of the reasons that he was further down on my list. I think you could get a guy that's a 10 year starter for sure, but maybe never a really good one. 

On the other hand, ND knows how to produce linemen, so we shall see. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

If McGilchey is the day one starter, we will likely have a top 3 run blocking tackle duo. Go from a top 3 pass blocking duo to a top 3 run blocking duo. Does Shanny believe due to how quickly Garoppolo gets rid of the ball that it is more important for his tackles to be good in that area opposite to being pure pass protectors?  

From the very first day of signing Jimmy to his contract I said one of our priorities should be protecting him. Yes, his release is as fast as I've ever seen. Still, he got hit a lot in his few games last year. Far too many times to think he'll last a decade or more without injury if he gets hit that hard, that often. Sure everyone wants an OT that can be great at both. But if I'm having to choose between a guy that is better as a pass blocker or better as a run blocker I'll take the former. I know that in any given game we need to be able to run. But it won't make one bit of difference if our franchise QB is injured and watching from the sideline. That's one of the reasons I keep calling Brown one of the best RTs in the game. I don't think his run blocking is as bad as most here do, but it sounds like everyone is in agreement his pass blocking is elite. Maybe McG is so good I won't have to choose between those two skills. But if his pass blocking is not good then I'm going to be greatly disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know this kid was a 2-time captain and described as a natural leader.  Those are things I really like in a player. We don't have many of those on our team. With Staley looking at retirement soon maybe he can take over as overall leader of the o-line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

From the very first day of signing Jimmy to his contract I said one of our priorities should be protecting him. Yes, his release is as fast as I've ever seen. Still, he got hit a lot in his few games last year. Far too many times to think he'll last a decade or more without injury if he gets hit that hard, that often. Sure everyone wants an OT that can be great at both. But if I'm having to choose between a guy that is better as a pass blocker or better as a run blocker I'll take the former. I know that in any given game we need to be able to run. But it won't make one bit of difference if our franchise QB is injured and watching from the sideline. That's one of the reasons I keep calling Brown one of the best RTs in the game. I don't think his run blocking is as bad as most here do, but it sounds like everyone is in agreement his pass blocking is elite. Maybe McG is so good I won't have to choose between those two skills. But if his pass blocking is not good then I'm going to be greatly disappointed.

I'm with you, but seems like Shanny didn't want his run game to be limited due to having a right tackle that just couldn't get out in space. But really, that is unrealistic for mammoth of a human being like Brown. His pass blocking skill set is great though and I figured Shanny would look to improve the interior OL over the tackle spot. Guess not.

Btw, Matt Maiocco has the best sources ever regardless of any beat writer in any sport lol. Doesn't matter about the regime, dude keeps hinting at things months before it happens. He said from like week 3 of last year that Brown was unlikely to get a contract extension here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...