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

[oldman9er]

I had the dude going to AZ at 15, so after the news of Trent Brown last night, I'm much more chill about the McG selection. AND now, getting another 3rd just makes it all the better. Of course, McG needs to quickly emerge as a worthy starter. Hard to say he was a clear BPA at 9, but life's too short to grumble about this move for long, imo. 

[JIllg]

30 minutes ago, oldman9er said:

I had the dude going to AZ at 15, so after the news of Trent Brown last night, I'm much more chill about the McG selection. AND now, getting another 3rd just makes it all the better. Of course, McG needs to quickly emerge as a worthy starter. Hard to say he was a clear BPA at 9, but life's too short to grumble about this move for long, imo. 

Especially if the coaching staff loves them some Colbert and Tartt more than might have been expected, Landry had a medical red flag, and Trent Brown ballooning more than we knew in the offseason. That leaves basically Tremaine as a value impact defender at a position of need. I disagree to some extent, but the fact that the logic is clear makes it more palatable than other decisions that have been made in the past.

[Ronnie's Pinky]

1 hour ago, big9erfan said:

This kind of discussion makes it seem like there is no such thing as a reach. Yet everyone talks about "reaches". Also FWIW I personally can't abide a definition of "reach" that involves waiting a few years and looking at a guy's career. That kind of definition is utterly useless.That's like trading your first rounder for some other team's 7th rounder and calling it a great trede as long as the guy you picked ends up having a better career than the guy they picked.

There surely are reaches where a team takes a guy considerably higher than they need to, but the problem with that sort of analysis is that we'll never know what other teams have on their draft boards. One can claim that a pick is a reach based on so-called expert mock drafts, but those aren't really worth much. The experts tend to be good at identifying the very best players in the draft, but once you get past the cream of the crop, their opinions rarely hold up.

The upper tier of this draft class was gone by pick #9, so McG was drafted in the part of the draft where the "expert" drafts just don't hold much value. If the 49ers had taken McGlinchey at #6 I'd be right there with you calling the pick a reach because it would mean they passed on at least one elite talent, but that's not how it went down. Outside of the 49ers and apparently the Raiders, we just don't know how other teams evaluated McGlinchey, so it's impossible to know if the team reached in taking him.

[Justone2]

Press conference is up on youtube.

[y2lamanaki]

18 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

There surely are reaches where a team takes a guy considerably higher than they need to, but the problem with that sort of analysis is that we'll never know what other teams have on their draft boards. One can claim that a pick is a reach based on so-called expert mock drafts, but those aren't really worth much. The experts tend to be good at identifying the very best players in the draft, but once you get past the cream of the crop, their opinions rarely hold up.

The upper tier of this draft class was gone by pick #9, so McG was drafted in the part of the draft where the "expert" drafts just don't hold much value. If the 49ers had taken McGlinchey at #6 I'd be right there with you calling the pick a reach because it would mean they passed on at least one elite talent, but that's not how it went down. Outside of the 49ers and apparently the Raiders, we just don't know how other teams evaluated McGlinchey, so it's impossible to know if the team reached in taking him.

What other teams have is entirely irrelevant to whether a guy is a reach or not. Multiple teams can each wish to reach for the same player. It's based on perceived talent level. And other experts don't matter to me - I pay little attention to them. They're always wrong.

Example - after the 2012 draft, it was reported that another team was supposedly ready to select AJ Jenkins at the top of the 2nd. AJ Jenkins was always a reach for a guy with 3rd/4th round talent for whom multiple teams were apparently set to reach. We were the ones that did reach. We were the ones that were stuck with a poor 3rd/4th round talent with our first pick. To classify this as 'not a reach' because a second team was supposedly going to take him means that there is no such thing as a reach. Because everybody is taken where they are taken, so at least one team had that player at that value.

That's crazy talk.  Reaches are real. 

And for the record, I'm still not of the belief that McGlinchey is a reach. I'm still of the belief that he's a top 10-15 player in this draft that just doesn't meet our scheme needs as far as my eyes are concerned. 

[big9erfan]

21 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

What other teams have is entirely irrelevant to whether a guy is a reach or not. Multiple teams can each wish to reach for the same player. It's based on perceived talent level. And other experts don't matter to me - I pay little attention to them. They're always wrong.

Example - after the 2012 draft, it was reported that another team was supposedly ready to select AJ Jenkins at the top of the 2nd. AJ Jenkins was always a reach for a guy with 3rd/4th round talent for whom multiple teams were apparently set to reach. We were the ones that did reach. We were the ones that were stuck with a poor 3rd/4th round talent with our first pick. To classify this as 'not a reach' because a second team was supposedly going to take him means that there is no such thing as a reach. Because everybody is taken where they are taken, so at least one team had that player at that value.

That's crazy talk.  Reaches are real. 

And for the record, I'm still not of the belief that McGlinchey is a reach. I'm still of the belief that he's a top 10-15 player in this draft that just doesn't meet our scheme needs as far as my eyes are concerned. 

I agree with all this but have a question. Is he a top 10-15 talent in any draft, or just in this one?  Every year when QBs get evaluated people talk about whoever is the best in the class, but then compare that guy to other years. Like Trubisky last year.  A lot people acknowledged he was a top 5 guy in the draft, while at the same time thinking he wasn't as good as a lot of the other best QBs from other years.  That's how I feel about McG. He is the best OT in this class.  But there's not one, including him, that I think of in the same way as some of the great OTs from other years. That film of his playing against Chubb was just awfull. Chubb beat him like a drum.  His getoff and footwork were bad.  I can't even imagine what it will be like if he has to try to block Von Miller. So in this draft I think he is about a mid-first round talent, not a top 10. But that's only because someone will need an  OT badly enough to take him - umm, that's us. To me we took a guy that was a mid-first round talent in this draft and maybe a 20's sort of guy in year when a lot of good OTs are coming out. So just curious whether you see him as a 10-15 in any draft.

As an aside, it's rare to have 3 QBs taken in the top 5. So him being taken at 9 is more like a guy going even lower most years. I just don't see him as a top 6 non-QB in most years. Well, actually in any year.

[big9erfan]

 Forge mentioned tunnel vision as maybe being a problem with our FO. Saw an interview with Lynch a earlier today that I think demonstrated that. In the first place he talked about how McGLinchey grew and grew on them. Yeah, I know that maybe he meant they saw things they liked that they miseed the first time around.  But it also sounded, if you heard him say it, like a team that was "falling in love" with a guy. He kind of confirmed that though when he said that he and Shanny agreed a week ago that they would take him if he was still there. He said they got some calls about trades but didn't really consider them since they had decided on hm if he was still there. Very much a tunnel vision approach. Fixated on the guy they fell in love with. You have to at least listen to every offer. You have to allow for the possibioity that some team will make you an offer that gives you more value than the guy you fell in love with. Our FO needs a little more Godfather thinking - it's not personal; it's just business. Walsh and Bellichik are two of the greatest ever partly because they don't fall in love with prospects, or even their own plauyers.

[Ronnie's Pinky]

22 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

And for the record, I'm still not of the belief that McGlinchey is a reach. I'm still of the belief that he's a top 10-15 player in this draft that just doesn't meet our scheme needs as far as my eyes are concerned. 

Interesting. See, I think you guessing better than the FO about McG's overall level of ability is a lot more likely than you knowing his scheme fit better than Kyle Shanahan. If you really think he's a top 10-15ish player in the draft on talent, then you ought to be thrilled with this pick. Kyle has a very good track record of identifying O-linemen who can perform in his system, and McGlinchey does play a premium position.

[y2lamanaki]

8 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

I agree with all this but have a question. Is he a top 10-15 talent in any draft, or just in this one?  Every year when QBs get evaluated people talk about whoever is the best in the class, but then compare that guy to other years. Like Trubisky last year.  A lot people acknowledged he was a top 5 guy in the draft, while at the same time thinking he wasn't as good as a lot of the other best QBs from other years.  That's how I feel about McG. He is the best OT in this class.  But there's not one, including him, that I think of in the same way as some of the great OTs from other years. That film of his playing against Chubb was just awfull. Chubb beat him like a drum.  His getoff and footwork were bad.  I can't even imagine what it will be like if he has to try to block Von Miller. So in this draft I think he is about a mid-first round talent, not a top 10. But that's only because someone will need an  OT badly enough to take him - umm, that's us. To me we took a guy that was a mid-first round talent in this draft and maybe a 20's sort of guy in year when a lot of good OTs are coming out. So just curious whether you see him as a 10-15 in any draft.

As an aside, it's rare to have 3 QBs taken in the top 5. So him being taken at 9 is more like a guy going even lower most years. I just don't see him as a top 6 non-QB in most years. Well, actually in any year.

If you go back to 2016, where you had Stanley, Conklin, and Tunsil, not to mention Goff, Wentz, Bosa, Ramsey, Elliott, Buckner, etc., I think McGlinchey would go #16 to the Lions over Taylor Decker. If that helps put how I value his talent into context. So, I'd say top 15 talent most drafts because 2016 was very talented.

Again, my lone concern is scheme fit. I think if he DID go to Oakland, they have a top 10 LT for a decade.

[J-ALL-DAY]

I think you heard wrong. He said they got plenty of calls for that pick but told them to wait until the Bears pick and if McGlinchey was there then they wouldn't trade back. That's not uncommon. Teams if they really like someone in the first round will hardly pass them up just for more picks. 

[big9erfan]

That's what I wanted to know. I don't disagree too much. I have him a few spots lower than you. I'm not sure if it's fit or just what I see as non non-fixable shortcomings in his game.

[y2lamanaki]

1 minute ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Interesting. See, I think you guessing better than the FO about McG's overall level of ability is a lot more likely than you knowing his scheme fit better than Kyle Shanahan. If you really think he's a top 10-15ish talent in the draft, you ought to be thrilled with this pick. Kyle has a very good track record of identifying O-linemen who can perform in his system.

True, but last year I was all-in on Alvin Kamara, and rather than pick him, we traded the pick to the Saints so they could take him. Joe Williams was the guy Shanny had to have, and he couldn't make an awful roster so they put him on IR with a minor injury. 

I'm not naive enough to think I know Shanahan's system more than he does or that I can execute it better, but in the great crap shoot that is the draft, I can stick to my guns.

[Ronnie's Pinky]

Some of me liking McGlinchey is also just superstition.

The Fighting Irish is this team's power animal. Joe, Ricky, Bryant, Lynch (shut up!). It's one of the reasons I like Sheldon Day, as well.

[Ronnie's Pinky]

6 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

True, but last year I was all-in on Alvin Kamara, and rather than pick him, we traded the pick to the Saints so they could take him. Joe Williams was the guy Shanny had to have, and he couldn't make an awful roster so they put him on IR with a minor injury. 

I'm not naive enough to think I know Shanahan's system more than he does or that I can execute it better, but in the great crap shoot that is the draft, I can stick to my guns.

If Williams fails, it won't be because he isn't a good scheme fit. That's a case of you just evaluating the talent better than the FO, which can always happen because the draft is a crapshoot.

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, Ronnie's Pinky said:

Some of me liking McGlinchey is also just superstition.

The Fighting Irish is this team's power animal. Joe, Ricky, Bryant, Lynch (shut up!). It's one of the reasons I like Sheldon Day, as well.

They have put out some quality offensive linemen lately as well. No denying that. Ronnie Stanley, Zach Martin. Nick Martin was a bit of a bust, but that's a bit rare. Quenton Nelson should obviously be a stud.