All things offseason

[deep9er]

I heard that too Deep from his interview with KNBR. He wants a natural thrower or pure passer, whatever the terminology. I agree that the Niners should draft a couple of QB and bring in a veteran. Have three compete for the job. Have one of the rookies end up on the practice squad. That's what they should have done to Driskell last year. Look what the Redskins did when they drafted RG3 and Cousins in the same draft. The Raiders drafted Cook last year even though they have Carr. A team is only one injury away from depending on its backup QB.

Yeah, if value arises later, i'd spend another pick on a QB. That pick will likely end up on the PS, but in this situation we're in, worth TRYING to develop two QB's. That pick might even be cut, but we have to try harder being there is no one now.

 

[deep9er]

I think the whole draft strategy will change. Baalke was BPA all the time and you can't do that in football. He ignored the skill positions too long. Drafting 20 cornerbacks and 10 tight ends in two seasons is not the way to build a football team.

I've always been for BPA, but ok there is a limit to doing this. The limit depends on where your team is at, and who you already have? They'ill obviously look for a slightly different type of offensive player, but a GOOD starter is a GOOD starter. This MIGHT be what you meant?

In general, i'm still for it because the idea is to add the most talent you can. that is the goal of drafting, add the maximum talent you can, year over year. i typically like to see BPA for at least the first 4 rounds. These are the guys who hope will be your every down starters, so you shouldn't target "high ceiling, but 2 years on the bench" guys. But yes there are limits too, for example, you wouldn't draft four straight OG's either.

Don't see why this new regime should change from BPA to Need? In fact, due to the current state of THIS team, i'd stick to BPA as much as i can.

 

[Pattersonca65]

I've always been for BPA, but ok there is a limit to doing this. The limit depends on where your team is at, and who you already have? They'ill obviously look for a slightly different type of offensive player, but a GOOD starter is a GOOD starter. This MIGHT be what you meant?

In general, i'm still for it because the idea is to add the most talent you can. that is the goal of drafting, add the maximum talent you can, year over year. i typically like to see BPA for at least the first 4 rounds. These are the guys who hope will be your every down starters, so you shouldn't target "high ceiling, but 2 years on the bench" guys. But yes there are limits too, for example, you wouldn't draft four straight OG's either.

Don't see why this new regime should change from BPA to Need? In fact, due to the current state of THIS team, i'd stick to BPA as much as i can.

That is overly simplistic. It isn't either/or. What I mean it isn't one or the other. You should factor both into your decision. Even the best teams have multiple needs. I am not a football GM but I would think when they setup draft boards that rank players based on skill and need. But in the NFL, because of roster size, free agency, and the alary cap, you have to factor in need. There are too many positions to fill. Example, if the BPA in the first round is quarterback and you have a 27 year old Aaron Rodgers as your QB, do you use your first round pick on a QB just because he is BPA? I don't think so. You can't afford to draft a bunch of players who might not contribute. A 49er example. If a 1st round choice is between a cornerback who is good but not elite and ranked an 8.5 or a good wide receiver that is ranked a 7.8, I am taking the wide receiver even if the cornerback is the BPA because the wide receiver is a huge need where cornerback is not. I'll might go BPA on the cornerback if he could be the next Dion Sanders but unless he is that kind of difference maker I would not. Baalke at times seemed to go BPA without regard to need. To draft a bunch of cornerbacks and tight ends when there are so many other glaring needs was just foolish and the neglect of some of those needs can be seen now.

 

[deep9er]

That is overly simplistic. It isn't either/or. What I mean it isn't one or the other. You should factor both into your decision. Even the best teams have multiple needs. I am not a football GM but I would think when they setup draft boards that rank players based on skill and need. But in the NFL, because of roster size, free agency, and the alary cap, you have to factor in need. There are too many positions to fill. Example, if the BPA in the first round is quarterback and you have a 27 year old Aaron Rodgers as your QB, do you use your first round pick on a QB just because he is BPA? I don't think so. You can't afford to draft a bunch of players who might not contribute. A 49er example. If a 1st round choice is between a cornerback who is good but not elite and ranked an 8.5 or a good wide receiver that is ranked a 7.8, I am taking the wide receiver even if the cornerback is the BPA because the wide receiver is a huge need where cornerback is not. I'll might go BPA on the cornerback if he could be the next Dion Sanders but unless he is that kind of difference maker I would not. Baalke at times seemed to go BPA without regard to need. To draft a bunch of cornerbacks and tight ends when there are so many other glaring needs was just foolish and the neglect of some of those needs can be seen now.

and that is fine, but i believe your wrote WHOLE change earlier? "Whole" implied being over to the Need side. Yes, there are no extremes either side, but don't recall any GM saying he leans on Need? But anyway, whatever you intended, is fine.

my opinion remains the same, stick way over to the BPA side as much as reasonable allows. All 7 rounds.

 

[deep9er]

How 49ers’ personnel fits a Seattle-style defense

Nice to think but the talent level is lacking quite a bit, at the LB spots.

 

[deep9er]

Kyle Shanahan Describes Being 'in the Zone' as a Play-caller 

Thats nice, but we'll see how it goes for time being. We all know there isn't much talent at the skill positions. Think the O-line isn't so bad, thankfully, but not much skill players.

 

[AU_Fever]

Kyle Shanahan Describes Being 'in the Zone' as a Play-caller


No playmakers. No receivers, TE is average and obviously no QB!!! Hyde is good, but he's been injured often. It doesn't matter how great a coach is, if he is not blessed with talent, he's not winning. If Shanahan doesn't get any talent, he's not going to see too many ENDZONES!!

 

[deep9er]

No playmakers. No receivers, TE is average and obviously no QB!!! Hyde is good, but he's been injured often. It doesn't matter how great a coach is, if he is not blessed with talent, he's not winning. If Shanahan doesn't get any talent, he's not going to see too many ENDZONES!!


Yep, so for this season it seems like most of us get this. Of course when the season actually starts, most of the 'understanding' goes out the window, but for now we understand.

At least get the scheme installed so that the mental errors are limited. If you don't have the talent to make it happen, fans will understand. But if players are lined up wrong, run the wrong routes, blocks the wrong person, etc., these things can be worked on right off.

 

[deep9er]

Five questions facing 49ers if they switch to 4-3 defense

Oh great, Armstead isn't meeting his 1st round draft status?!

Looking at these potential line-ups, seems to me the LB corp is really bad. We keep depending on Bowman but even he's had bad injuries, and isn't young any more. If we end up drafting Edge followed by ILB, i'd be ok with that.

 

[Pattersonca65]

Five questions facing 49ers if they switch to 4-3 defense

Oh great, Armstead isn't meeting his 1st round draft status?!

Looking at these potential line-ups, seems to me the LB corp is really bad. We keep depending on Bowman but even he's had bad injuries, and isn't young any more. If we end up drafting Edge followed by ILB, i'd be ok with that.

Pretty hard to judge Armstead at this point. He was okay as a rookie. Last year the 49ers made a big mistake by trying to play him with a bad rotator cuff since training camp. He wasn't effective because of it. They should have done surgery when he injured it and maybe he could have come back during the second part of the season healthy

 

[poewelch84]

How 49ers’ personnel fits a Seattle-style defense

Nice to think but the talent level is lacking quite a bit, at the LB spots.

Well if you read this I'm thinking Allen or Garrett (Garrett I believe will go #1) and have him play the NT position in the defense with Allen probably makes the most sense because you aren't going to get an elite Leo player at this moment and then get a LB in the 2nd round to play the SAM or Strong-Side LB position. The rest of the defense should at least short it's self out with the guys already on the roster, maybe adding a guy to play the Weak-Side LB position in round 3 or 4.

 

[deep9er]

Well if you read this I'm thinking Allen or Garrett (Garrett I believe will go #1) and have him play the NT position in the defense with Allen probably makes the most sense because you aren't going to get an elite Leo player at this moment and then get a LB in the 2nd round to play the SAM or Strong-Side LB position. The rest of the defense should at least short it's self out with the guys already on the roster, maybe adding a guy to play the Weak-Side LB position in round 3 or 4.

If we intend to go more 4-3, Allen could be a starting DT. But seems like a 4-3 is being inefficient with our previous TWO 1st round picks?

If we intend to stick to more 3-4, then hard to justify Allen at NT? Especially since the 'true' NT is taken out on passing downs. Granted, Armstead could be the guy taken out first.

Tough call but if Allen is the clear BPA, draft him. If he isn't the clear BPA, any chance an EDGE (Barnett) is worth it?

 

[RobertPhD01]

Earl Mitchell DT going to be released by Miami!?!

 

[poewelch84]

If we intend to go more 4-3, Allen could be a starting DT. But seems like a 4-3 is being inefficient with our previous TWO 1st round picks?

If we intend to stick to more 3-4, then hard to justify Allen at NT? Especially since the 'true' NT is taken out on passing downs. Granted, Armstead could be the guy taken out first.

Tough call but if Allen is the clear BPA, draft him. If he isn't the clear BPA, any chance an EDGE (Barnett) is worth it?

As the article spelled out Armstead would play DE in the 4-3 scheme, Buckner DT, Lynch or Brooks DE, and that would leave a NT/DT still needing to be filled and Allen fits that position.

 

[poewelch84]

If we intend to go more 4-3, Allen could be a starting DT. But seems like a 4-3 is being inefficient with our previous TWO 1st round picks?

If we intend to stick to more 3-4, then hard to justify Allen at NT? Especially since the 'true' NT is taken out on passing downs. Granted, Armstead could be the guy taken out first.

Tough call but if Allen is the clear BPA, draft him. If he isn't the clear BPA, any chance an EDGE (Barnett) is worth it?

Defensive tackle/nose tackle – Even though the Seahawks use a base 4-3, they still have a role for someone who lines up over the opposition’s center. This typically has been a shorter, stubbier player in Seattle’s system (think 6-foot-1, 310-pound Brandon Mebane). The best recent 49er for this position is Ian Williams, but he was released in October and his NFL future is very much up in the air due to recent injuries. The team’s top nose tackle from last season, Glenn Dorsey, is a pending free agent. Quinton Dial is an option, but at 6-5, he’s not a prototypical nose tackle, especially in this particular schem

Read more here: How 49ers’ personnel fits a Seattle-style defense

So it would seem there is a roll for a NT/DT type player with an elite guy that most likely be available when the the 49ers pick at #2.

 

[deep9er]

As the article spelled out Armstead would play DE in the 4-3 scheme, Buckner DT, Lynch or Brooks DE, and that would leave a NT/DT still needing to be filled and Allen fits that position.

Armstead hasn’t been good enough against the run to be considered an every-down defensive tackle, nor has he proven quick enough off the edge to be an end in a 4-3. His best role might be as a situational pass rusher from the interior, potentially limiting him to 60 percent of the snaps. Is that the type of role the 49ers envision for the former 17th-overall pick, or does he have more value to a 3-4 team on the trade market?

 

[deep9er]

Defensive tackle/nose tackle – Even though the Seahawks use a base 4-3, they still have a role for someone who lines up over the opposition’s center. This typically has been a shorter, stubbier player in Seattle’s system (think 6-foot-1, 310-pound Brandon Mebane). The best recent 49er for this position is Ian Williams, but he was released in October and his NFL future is very much up in the air due to recent injuries. The team’s top nose tackle from last season, Glenn Dorsey, is a pending free agent. Quinton Dial is an option, but at 6-5, he’s not a prototypical nose tackle, especially in this particular schem

Read more here: How 49ers’ personnel fits a Seattle-style defense

So it would seem there is a roll for a NT/DT type player with an elite guy that most likely be available when the the 49ers pick at #2.

for me, i take "role" as just that, a role player. So if we stick more to a 3-4 scheme, drafting Allen #2 overall for a 'role', is a tough call.

but ok, if he is our BPA, then draft him, because it is way more than this coming season. We'll play him at his best spot, even if that means Armstead doesn't start.

 

[poewelch84]

for me, i take "role" as just that, a role player. So if we stick more to a 3-4 scheme, drafting Allen #2 overall for a 'role', is a tough call.

but ok, if he is our BPA, then draft him, because it is way more than this coming season. We'll play him at his best spot, even if that means Armstead doesn't start.

Now maybe I was reading it incorrectly but the way I believe it was Barrows was describing the Seahawks defense they have a NT type DT playing with the other guys listed so his role is to plug a gap and stop the run, along with the other DE and two of the three LB's with one of those LB's potentially responsible for coverage as well. But I could have read it incorrectly. I don't disagree that LB is a larger need but was more getting to the point that at least if this is correct drafting Allen would in the very least give them a player that they would be using regularly on their defensive front and still use Buckner and Armstead because I image Allen will be the BPA when they pick at #2.

 

[VASFfan]

Now maybe I was reading it incorrectly but the way I believe it was Barrows was describing the Seahawks defense they have a NT type DT playing with the other guys listed so his role is to plug a gap and stop the run, along with the other DE and two of the three LB's with one of those LB's potentially responsible for coverage as well. But I could have read it incorrectly. I don't disagree that LB is a larger need but was more getting to the point that at least if this is correct drafting Allen would in the very least give them a player that they would be using regularly on their defensive front and still use Buckner and Armstead because I image Allen will be the BPA when they pick at #2.

Yes, that was exactly it. One side is basically the pass-rushing side, the other side is focused on stuffing the run. In this scheme, Buckner would become the pass-rushing tackle on one side next to Lynch or Brooks as the "Leo" as he put it. Sort of a 3-4 edge rusher. But at Brooks' age he wouldn't fill it for long (or in my preference not at all, time to move on). If Lynch gets serious about keeping healthy and in shape, then I guess he could fill it but so could Myles Garrett. (Nothing wrong about dreaming!) On the other side...actually Armistead would be a good fit as the DE but we got nothin' for the nose tackle guy, at least not as how Seattle uses him.

However, I don't think Allen would be a good choice for us, not without being redundant. Allen doesn't really have the size to be a NT, and while he could play the pass-rushing DT role, that's presumably going to go to Buckner. I don't think he'd fill the Leo role very well, either. If Garrett isn't available at #2, then unless Shanahan falls in love with Trubisky or one of the other QB's (and I'm kinda praying he doesn't but that's a separate issue), then trading down a bit may be the best option. Because the way the draft is shaping up, the other top options would be Allen (who while talented I don't think would be the best value for US), or guys from positions (like CB or WR) that I just don't think provide the best value that high in the draft. And I grant that may just be my way of thinking and is totally subjective, but that's my perspective.

 

[deep9er]

Now maybe I was reading it incorrectly but the way I believe it was Barrows was describing the Seahawks defense they have a NT type DT playing with the other guys listed so his role is to plug a gap and stop the run, along with the other DE and two of the three LB's with one of those LB's potentially responsible for coverage as well. But I could have read it incorrectly. I don't disagree that LB is a larger need but was more getting to the point that at least if this is correct drafting Allen would in the very least give them a player that they would be using regularly on their defensive front and still use Buckner and Armstead because I image Allen will be the BPA when they pick at #2.

Yeah, or maybe i'm reading it wrong?

Either way, WE'RE ok drafting Allen if he is THAT good. As i've always posted, we should look at it over the players career, not the coming season. So while this coming season might look "inefficient", things change fast in the NFL.