Jump to content

49ers Select Dante Pettis, WR, Washington#44 Overall


y2lamanaki

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Chrissooner49er said:

Perhaps there were better players...but he was a better fit for the system? Just attempting to think like Shanahan, though I never had an issue with the pick. 

Did I mention Pettis was my favorite WR in the draft?! :P

I've been saying this for a while now - the FO is a stickler on "fits" in their scheme. They get tunnel vision regarding it. Now, that doesn't inherently make it a bad thing because a lot depends on how it works out with guys that we are drafting and signing in FA, but it's something that I have a keen eye on moving forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

If we had just stayed pat and drafted him in our original slot, I wouldn't like the pick but I wouldn't hate it either but the trade up just makes it hard to stomach. He has to evolve into a legitimate #2 WR to justify the pick IMO. Anything less and it was wasted pick. AND the fact we got such great value for Richie James makes the pick look that much more of a reach.

I'm not a huge proponent of moving up in the draft in large chunks to begin with, and very seldom for a wide receiver, so I was never really going to like that trade. Now, there are instances where I would understand moving up a ton in a draft - had we made this move for Landry, despite me not even being the biggest Landry fan, I would have completely understood it. Position of need, there was no other player even close to him in the upside he could provide defensively, and there was a big drop off to the next guy at the position. Totally would have made sense for me. Pettis? Meh. I would have been willing to risk it to be quite honest. 

I don't want to underscore his return abilities, and if he became something of a Devin Hester in that regard, he'd totally be worth the second round pick. And if he isn't quite that good and manages to have a Tedd Ginn like impact (obviously, he won't be quite the deep threat, but I mean in terms of production as a returner + receiver in general), then he's probably worth the pick as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gore Whore 21 said:

I believe DJ Chark was picked one pick after our original 2nd rounder. I would have rather just stuck it out and drafted him. The one thing that is keeping me from completely hating this pick is his punt return ability. I feel like there were better players on the board when we traded up as well as after our original pick.

And Gallup was available at the other pick we gave away to get Pettis. We could have had BOTH of them, or James Washington and Gallup, or Washington and then Chark at a much smaller trade up price than what we paid to move up to get Pettis. Time will tell how those guys work out. But knowing what I know now I'd take any two of those three guys over Pettis alone in a heartbeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I am beginning to feel like I am on an island! Am I the ONLY one not disgruntled with this pick in any way?! 

Seriously, I would like to know. Much of this thread bemoans the trade up or even picking him at all. 

So, please chime in if you are as pleased with having Dante Pettis as a 9er REGARDLESS of the trade up. I am VERY pleased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chrissooner49er said:

Wow, I am beginning to feel like I am on an island! Am I the ONLY one not disgruntled with this pick in any way?! 

Seriously, I would like to know. Much of this thread bemoans the trade up or even picking him at all. 

So, please chime in if you are as pleased with having Dante Pettis as a 9er REGARDLESS of the trade up. I am VERY pleased.

With guys like Chark still on the board, no I wasn't happy with the pick. I think that there were better WRs on the board from my eval. Time will tell whether the brass got it right or us armchair GMs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chrissooner49er said:

Wow, I am beginning to feel like I am on an island! Am I the ONLY one not disgruntled with this pick in any way?! 

Seriously, I would like to know. Much of this thread bemoans the trade up or even picking him at all. 

So, please chime in if you are as pleased with having Dante Pettis as a 9er REGARDLESS of the trade up. I am VERY pleased.

I'm pleased with having Pettis in SF. I really like what I see from the overall WR corps. 

I can't say I love the value and trade up for him (slight appreciation for helping out Washington/Alex), but still.. I don't love that value/trade. 

 

Does or will my lacking love of the value/trade leave me endlessly griping? NOPE

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

With guys like Chark still on the board, no I wasn't happy with the pick. I think that there were better WRs on the board from my eval. Time will tell whether the brass got it right or us armchair GMs. 

My issue with things like this is how do you know Chark would work in this offense? From what I heard about Chark is that he's straight-lined fast and a vertical threat first and foremost. What if Shanahan doesn't value that kind of receiver since we kind of already have that in Goodwin.

We know that Shanahan wants guys who are an above average athlete, can catch, can separate with technique or quickness, is a great route runner, and knows how to run more than basic routes. Some of the guys we all liked more than Pettis don't fit that profile, so why would we think they would be a good fit for Shanahan's offense? I think people get caught up in tall receivers, jump balls, straight-line speed and forget to think about those players in the context of what is considered to be the proto-typical WR for this offense. 

Pettis has been praised, by multiple analysts, for his advanced feel for route running, his above average athletic ability, his ability to catch the ball consistently, his separation skills both with explosion and technique, and he can play all three WR positions. He's a natural fit for what Shanahan wants in a WR. I'm not sure why that doesn't excite people. It's always a topic of conversation that when a coach is failing it's because he doesn't have "his guys." Shanahan and Lynch have been making it a priority to go out and get guys that are tailor-made for Shanahan's scheme. I still think Pettis was a bit of a reach, but I really like the player and the fit. If Pettis works out for the Niners, I won't care AT ALL about the trade up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, NinerNation21 said:

My issue with things like this is how do you know Chark would work in this offense? From what I heard about Chark is that he's straight-lined fast and a vertical threat first and foremost. What if Shanahan doesn't value that kind of receiver since we kind of already have that in Goodwin.

We know that Shanahan wants guys who are an above average athlete, can catch, can separate with technique or quickness, is a great route runner, and knows how to run more than basic routes. Some of the guys we all liked more than Pettis don't fit that profile, so why would we think they would be a good fit for Shanahan's offense? I think people get caught up in tall receivers, jump balls, straight-line speed and forget to think about those players in the context of what is considered to be the proto-typical WR for this offense. 

Pettis has been praised, by multiple analysts, for his advanced feel for route running, his above average athletic ability, his ability to catch the ball consistently, his separation skills both with explosion and technique, and he can play all three WR positions. He's a natural fit for what Shanahan wants in a WR. I'm not sure why that doesn't excite people. It's always a topic of conversation that when a coach is failing it's because he doesn't have "his guys." Shanahan and Lynch have been making it a priority to go out and get guys that are tailor-made for Shanahan's scheme. I still think Pettis was a bit of a reach, but I really like the player and the fit. If Pettis works out for the Niners, I won't care AT ALL about the trade up. 

I mostly agree. Even among players that have skillsets of roughly equivalent overall value, specific skills will be more important in some schemes than others and should be valued more by the team that picks them. It is worth taking these players at the head of their little player run because they will be much more valuable to the team in the long run. The only concern here for me is there is a bit of a consistent theme of ignoring opportunity cost occasionally with our drafts. I think that quality could make the FO absolutely lethal. Because they do seem (over a miniscule sample size) to be quite good at identifying the traits that fit each of their positions and which players actually provide those traits. I actually was pretty happy with the FA signings. Yes, McKinnon's contract is a bit hilarious compared to his position group. And he will not provide that contract's level of RB value. But the thing is...this year's cap was basically nearly unspendable without doing very stupid things. So levering it to overpay for a player that could significantly improve a position group without hurting future cap space is the best thing you could do with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JIllg said:

I mostly agree. Even among players that have skillsets of roughly equivalent overall value, specific skills will be more important in some schemes than others and should be valued more by the team that picks them. It is worth taking these players at the head of their little player run because they will be much more valuable to the team in the long run. The only concern here for me is there is a bit of a consistent theme of ignoring opportunity cost occasionally with our drafts. I think that quality could make the FO absolutely lethal. Because they do seem (over a miniscule sample size) to be quite good at identifying the traits that fit each of their positions and which players actually provide those traits. I actually was pretty happy with the FA signings. Yes, McKinnon's contract is a bit hilarious compared to his position group. And he will not provide that contract's level of RB value. But the thing is...this year's cap was basically nearly unspendable without doing very stupid things. So levering it to overpay for a player that could significantly improve a position group without hurting future cap space is the best thing you could do with it. 

I tend to side more on finding guys who fit what you do, rather than taking guys who are "too good to pass up" that could be more like a square peg in a round hole. With that said, I still think the appropriate value is important. You don't want to take a guy in the 1st who is valued as a 3rd rounder. But with Pettis, he has said that teams have placed his value at the bottom of the second or top of the 3rd. Ultimately, he went middle of the second. So we're not talking about an astronomical jump to take him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NinerNation21 said:

I tend to side more on finding guys who fit what you do, rather than taking guys who are "too good to pass up" that could be more like a square peg in a round hole. With that said, I still think the appropriate value is important. You don't want to take a guy in the 1st who is valued as a 3rd rounder. But with Pettis, he has said that teams have placed his value at the bottom of the second or top of the 3rd. Ultimately, he went middle of the second. So we're not talking about an astronomical jump to take him. 

At the cost of a late second + early third. This is important. I don't think that most people have an issue with where he was taken. If the spot had been our own original draft selection, I don't think anyone would really be griping. His draft spot, while slightly high, is within the range, so I don't think that there are many issues there. Sure, some may have preferred different players at other positions or even at the same position, but that's largely just personal preference.. It's not the player, or really even the slotting that most people dislike; some people can consider it a slight reach, but you're really splitting hairs at that point and griping just to gripe. But most people don't like the value when conducted through the trade. So no, his draft slotting isn't an astronomical jump, but the cost to get him ultimately is what people dislike. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NinerNation21 said:

I tend to side more on finding guys who fit what you do, rather than taking guys who are "too good to pass up" that could be more like a square peg in a round hole. With that said, I still think the appropriate value is important. You don't want to take a guy in the 1st who is valued as a 3rd rounder. But with Pettis, he has said that teams have placed his value at the bottom of the second or top of the 3rd. Ultimately, he went middle of the second. So we're not talking about an astronomical jump to take him. 

Which has been the story of previous regimes! Taylor Mays comes to mind...ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

At the cost of a late second + early third. This is important. I don't think that most people have an issue with where he was taken. If the spot had been our own original draft selection, I don't think anyone would really be griping. His draft spot, while slightly high, is within the range, so I don't think that there are many issues there. Sure, some may have preferred different players at other positions or even at the same position, but that's largely just personal preference.. It's not the player, or really even the slotting that most people dislike; some people can consider it a slight reach, but you're really splitting hairs at that point and griping just to gripe. But most people don't like the value when conducted through the trade. So no, his draft slotting isn't an astronomical jump, but the cost to get him ultimately is what people dislike. 

And such complaints have dominated this thread. Why can't we just relax and wait and see?! People seem to distrust the FO when all they have done points to improvement, thus far! When they ACTUALLY do something that truly warrants such hand-wringing/complaining, then I can understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrissooner49er said:

And such complaints have dominated this thread. Why can't we just relax and wait and see?! People seem to distrust the FO when all they have done points to improvement, thus far! When they ACTUALLY do something that truly warrants such hand-wringing/complaining, then I can understand. 

Because we talk about things, share opinions and discuss? Otherwise, what are we doing here? If we are all just going to trust the FO and not have any opinions or feelings on something to chat about, why are we even here? We can just trust the front office from the comfort of our own home and not speak to one another, quite frankly. There's not much to discuss, it's the off season. The alternative is that we become the Colts board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I'm very happy Dante Pettis is a 49er, and even though Michael Gallup was my favorite receiver in this range, I don't necessarily mind that Pettis was chosen over him.

Regarding the value? I strongly dislike the trade up to get him. But I said my piece when it happened. Much like I hated Tartt's value in 2015 while really liking the player, now that the draft is over and OTAs have begun, I'm just really concerned with how he's fitting in. He's a 49er.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NinerNation21 said:

My issue with things like this is how do you know Chark would work in this offense? From what I heard about Chark is that he's straight-lined fast and a vertical threat first and foremost. What if Shanahan doesn't value that kind of receiver since we kind of already have that in Goodwin.

We know that Shanahan wants guys who are an above average athlete, can catch, can separate with technique or quickness, is a great route runner, and knows how to run more than basic routes. Some of the guys we all liked more than Pettis don't fit that profile, so why would we think they would be a good fit for Shanahan's offense? I think people get caught up in tall receivers, jump balls, straight-line speed and forget to think about those players in the context of what is considered to be the proto-typical WR for this offense. 

Pettis has been praised, by multiple analysts, for his advanced feel for route running, his above average athletic ability, his ability to catch the ball consistently, his separation skills both with explosion and technique, and he can play all three WR positions. He's a natural fit for what Shanahan wants in a WR. I'm not sure why that doesn't excite people. It's always a topic of conversation that when a coach is failing it's because he doesn't have "his guys." Shanahan and Lynch have been making it a priority to go out and get guys that are tailor-made for Shanahan's scheme. I still think Pettis was a bit of a reach, but I really like the player and the fit. If Pettis works out for the Niners, I won't care AT ALL about the trade up. 

Well for one, I don't think Chark is just a straight line speed guy. I felt he has very good short area quickness and the ability to separate in close quarters. Watching the Senior Bowl pratices, he had no problem getting in and out of cuts against the press or separating intermediate. His 3-Cone and SS seem to back-up that he has no problem being shifty enough. Now Shanny may have seen some things as a route runner he didn't like but I don't for a second think he thought Chark couldn't create separation, against press. One the biggest knocks on Pettis is that he struggled against press-man so that's just as big of an issue, if not bigger, being a WR in Shanny's scheme. 

Now I don't mind if Shanny just liked him more and wanted him. Fine. But as the GM, Lynch needs to get better value here. Part of smart drafting isn't just blindly going after guys you like. Its a science behind getting guys who fit your criteria, while not paying a premium to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...