All things offseason

[Pattersonca65]

After 14 new additions, here’s what a 49ers depth chart looks like

After signing 14 free agents, here's the depth chart of the Niners per Matt Barrows. I think Niners till need help with RB, LB and OL. They still need to determine who is going to play RDE or "Leo".

Right now Lynch is their best pass rusher. He is talented but unfortunately can he come to camp in shape and actually be ready this year? I've seen nothing from Tank and little from Eli Harold. I would have dumped Carradine. I have my doubts about Harold too. Maybe one more year.

 

[deep9er]

Right now Lynch is their best pass rusher. He is talented but unfortunately can he come to camp in shape and actually be ready this year? I've seen nothing from Tank and little from Eli Harold. I would have dumped Carradine. I have my doubts about Harold too. Maybe one more year.

Yep, we're missing the two key players....QB and EDGE.

Worse, we have the #2 overall and NOT able to fill one of them.

 

[Pattersonca65]

Yep, we're missing the two key players....QB and EDGE.

Worse, we have the #2 overall and NOT able to fill one of them.

I wouldn't mind trading down if we could get some additional picks. If Garrett goes #1, then there isn't really anyone who stands out at #2

 

[deep9er]

I wouldn't mind trading down if we could get some additional picks. If Garrett goes #1, then there isn't really anyone who stands out at #2

don't think ANYONE here minds, but just can't see another team wanting to move up?

i guess we can take a lot less than last year's Philly/Tenn?

 

[poewelch84]

don't think ANYONE here minds, but just can't see another team wanting to move up?

i guess we can take a lot less than last year's Philly/Tenn?

I think it depends on how far they are moving back. I think I would still want a 1st, 2nd and 3rd this year.

 

[deep9er]

I think it depends on how far they are moving back. I think I would still want a 1st, 2nd and 3rd this year.

Your 'want' is fine, but i can't imagine another team giving up this much capital? Even for Atlanta at #31 (cause NE doesn't have all these picks), it isn't an easy decision IMO?

Just my opinion....i sure hope i'm wrong.

 

[VASFfan]

Your 'want' is fine, but i can't imagine another team giving up this much capital? Even for Atlanta at #31 (cause NE doesn't have all these picks), it isn't an easy decision IMO?

Just my opinion....i sure hope i'm wrong.

I agree that it's unlikely someone is going to hand over a boatload of picks. But I can imagine a team deciding (assuming that the Browns take Garrett) that, depending on needs, they're willing to trade up for an Allen or a Peppers, for instance. Peppers has the kind of freaky skills that some teams fall in love with, ignoring the fact that he doesn't have a clearly defined position. And who knows, some team may decide that there is a QB they need to have and need to jump ahead of the Bears to be sure they get him. Personally I have a hard time imagining that some team would fall that in love with either Trubisky or Watson, but stranger things have happened in the draft.

 

[AU_Fever]

I agree that it's unlikely someone is going to hand over a boatload of picks. But I can imagine a team deciding (assuming that the Browns take Garrett) that, depending on needs, they're willing to trade up for an Allen or a Peppers, for instance. Peppers has the kind of freaky skills that some teams fall in love with, ignoring the fact that he doesn't have a clearly defined position. And who knows, some team may decide that there is a QB they need to have and need to jump ahead of the Bears to be sure they get him. Personally I have a hard time imagining that some team would fall that in love with either Trubisky or Watson, but stranger things have happened in the draft.

I don't think there is a team that is desperate enough to move up to #2 and draft a QB. Jets need a QB, but might be looking at Cutler. The Texans definitely need a QB, but are waiting for Romo to be released. The Cardinals might be in play for their future QB once Palmer retires, but one of the three QBs will end up falling on their lap. Tyrod Taylor resigned with the Bills so no team below the Niners is in dire need for a QB.

Allen is a beast, but his arthritis may concern some teams. He only manage to do 23 reps. That's not a lot. A few players that teams below the Niners may covet might be Malik Hooker, Jamal Adams or Marshon Lattimore.

 

[AU_Fever]

2017 NFL Draft Profile: Solomon Thomas

2017 NFL Draft Profile: Malik Hooker

Assuming the Browns take Garrett, would Solomon Thomas be a reach at #2. Allen would have been my choice, but his arthritis concerns me. Another player that I've seen a couple of mock drafts at #2 is Malik Hooker, safety from Ohio State. He range and ball skills are insane. He has great size to be able to battle with the bigger receivers. He could be the Niners version of "Earl Thomas." His downside is that he has only played the safety position for a year.

 

[poewelch84]

Your 'want' is fine, but i can't imagine another team giving up this much capital? Even for Atlanta at #31 (cause NE doesn't have all these picks), it isn't an easy decision IMO?

Just my opinion....i sure hope i'm wrong.

It's pretty simple really you don't trade the pick unless you think you are getting close to fair value. Looking at most value charts the 49ers pick is 2600 value the 10th pick in the draft is valued at 1300 so for the team to move back that far unless they are willing to be swindled would need to get at least what I mentioned to equal out in value and even then it wouldn't be even. The way you are talking the front office might as well trade their #2 pick in the draft for some 3rd and 4th rounders. Atlanta's pick is worth 600 so they would have to trade their entire draft board to move up to the #2 pick basically. Now because of this draft I doubt too many teams are willing to trade up so it most likely won't be a problem. But if someone is they will most likely have to part with their 1st, 2nd and 3rd or in the very least their 1st and 2nd plus a combination of other picks.

 

[deep9er]

It's pretty simple really you don't trade the pick unless you think you are getting close to fair value. Looking at most value charts the 49ers pick is 2600 value the 10th pick in the draft is valued at 1300 so for the team to move back that far unless they are willing to be swindled would need to get at least what I mentioned to equal out in value and even then it wouldn't be even. The way you are talking the front office might as well trade their #2 pick in the draft for some 3rd and 4th rounders. Atlanta's pick is worth 600 so they would have to trade their entire draft board to move up to the #2 pick basically. Now because of this draft I doubt too many teams are willing to trade up so it most likely won't be a problem. But if someone is they will most likely have to part with their 1st, 2nd and 3rd or in the very least their 1st and 2nd plus a combination of other picks.

yes it is simple.....it isn't my talking. My opinion all along has been no one will trade up to #2. Why? For the same reason we want to trade down.

Others feel we CAN trade down and nothing wrong with that opinion. So ok i agree we could trade down if we're willing take less? That is what that Atlanta illustration was about, it is showing HOW MUCH less. IMO even Atlanta would have a hard time trading up to #2, even if they GAIN points.

 

[poewelch84]

No point in trading down if you are getting fleeced to do so. unless you are getting fair value, tell the other team tough luck, go try and rip someone else off.

 

[deep9er]

No point in trading down if you are getting fleeced to do so. unless you are getting fair value, tell the other team tough luck, go try and rip someone else off.

yeah, so for me we're making that pick at #2 overall.

but i guess its possible we might be in a very unusual situation? trying to stay open minded here, what IF our team views #2 thru #17 as all 'equal' value?

 

[poewelch84]

yeah, so for me we're making that pick at #2 overall.

but i guess its possible we might be in a very unusual situation? trying to stay open minded here, what IF our team views #2 thru #17 as all 'equal' value?

If that is their view then I guess you could make a deal. Although this is a deep draft picking at #2 you should get one of the best players in the draft were as at #17 you are very much at the mercy of the other 16 teams ahead of you.

 

[deep9er]

If that is their view then I guess you could make a deal. Although this is a deep draft picking at #2 you should get one of the best players in the draft were as at #17 you are very much at the mercy of the other 16 teams ahead of you.

Anyway, i am 99.9% sure we'll draft #2 overall, and i'll be fine with Trubisky, Allen, Foster, Hooker, Adams, Lattimore, and Thomas. There are probably a few more players i could believe are our BPA, so for me, all these guys have 'equal' value.

The other 0.01% is only to keep an open mind. Again, i hope i'm wrong about a trade down.

 

[VASFfan]

Anyway, i am 99.9% sure we'll draft #2 overall, and i'll be fine with Trubisky, Allen, Foster, Hooker, Adams, Lattimore, and Thomas. There are probably a few more players i could believe are our BPA, so for me, all these guys have 'equal' value.

The other 0.01% is only to keep an open mind. Again, i hope i'm wrong about a trade down.

Just to play devil's advocate...what if the Niners' internal reviews and discussions lead them to conclude something like: "Ok, assuming Garrett is gone, there are 5 guys we'd be equally happy with." (Or 3 or 7 or whatever number works for you.) Does that make trading down just a few spots (again assuming someone wants to trade up) more palatable? So if we trade down 3 spots and 3 of our guys get picked, there are still a couple of others we can choose from AND come out of it with another pick or two?

I can appreciate that some people might not like the idea of someone else in effect determining your destiny. But if the team really were not to have any preferences among several guys, is there really a material harm in trading down, picking whoever is left, and getting more picks?

Obviously if the Niners have a preference, then this is moot. Just posing a hypothetical scenario. BTW, for my purposes, if two guys grade out on a 10 point scale as a 6.77 and a 6.76, I would consider those two players as equivalently valuable (assuming their positions are of equal need). I mean, as a guy who does statistical analyses for a living, a .01 difference is a difference without a difference. Just wanted to be clear about that, in case it matters to anyone.

 

[Niner Outlaw]

Niners trade for Ravens center J.Zuttah in exchange for a swap of 6th rd picks. Finally, a better center!

 

[deep9er]

Just to play devil's advocate...what if the Niners' internal reviews and discussions lead them to conclude something like: "Ok, assuming Garrett is gone, there are 5 guys we'd be equally happy with." (Or 3 or 7 or whatever number works for you.) Does that make trading down just a few spots (again assuming someone wants to trade up) more palatable? So if we trade down 3 spots and 3 of our guys get picked, there are still a couple of others we can choose from AND come out of it with another pick or two?

I can appreciate that some people might not like the idea of someone else in effect determining your destiny. But if the team really were not to have any preferences among several guys, is there really a material harm in trading down, picking whoever is left, and getting more picks?

Obviously if the Niners have a preference, then this is moot. Just posing a hypothetical scenario. BTW, for my purposes, if two guys grade out on a 10 point scale as a 6.77 and a 6.76, I would consider those two players as equivalently valuable (assuming their positions are of equal need). I mean, as a guy who does statistical analyses for a living, a .01 difference is a difference without a difference. Just wanted to be clear about that, in case it matters to anyone.

Not quite sure what this scenario is........is it trade down a few spots but still retain 'equal' draft points? Or accept less points but still gain an extra draft pick? I tend to think the latter but i'll go ahead and ask?

Don't see us getting 'equal' draft points in any trade down scenario. As such, i'm 99.9% positive we're picking #2 overall.

 

[VASFfan]

Not quite sure what this scenario is........is it trade down a few spots but still retain 'equal' draft points? Or accept less points but still gain an extra draft pick? I tend to think the latter but i'll go ahead and ask?

Don't see us getting 'equal' draft points in any trade down scenario. As such, i'm 99.9% positive we're picking #2 overall.

I was assuming, without actually checking one of the points charts, that trading down 2 or 3 or 4 spots wouldn't involve a DRAMATIC swapping of point values. And that for the sake of this exercise, a team would be willing to give up whatever pick(s) that would be necessary to make us whole. (Obviously, if in the real world a team would NOT want to give up a 2 or a 2 and a 3 or whatever, then this again is moot.) But to answer your question more directly, no, I wouldn't be inclined to trade down if it meant instead of an extra 2nd round pick (for example), we'd get a 4th. I don't mind trading down under the right circumstances, but I'm not interested in hanging out a sign that says "I'm stupid and desperate, come steal from me." IF it's something slightly different (we get a pick toward the start of the 3rd rather than at the back end of the 2nd) and if I am eager to make a deal because I want the extra picks (or alternatively, I want to get out of my drafting slot because there is NO ONE I want to pick), then I probably wouldn't sneeze over such a basically trivial difference. But I get the sense you're asking whether I would take a significant loss just to trade down and get more picks, and the answer is "no."

 

[poewelch84]

I was assuming, without actually checking one of the points charts, that trading down 2 or 3 or 4 spots wouldn't involve a DRAMATIC swapping of point values. And that for the sake of this exercise, a team would be willing to give up whatever pick(s) that would be necessary to make us whole. (Obviously, if in the real world a team would NOT want to give up a 2 or a 2 and a 3 or whatever, then this again is moot.) But to answer your question more directly, no, I wouldn't be inclined to trade down if it meant instead of an extra 2nd round pick (for example), we'd get a 4th. I don't mind trading down under the right circumstances, but I'm not interested in hanging out a sign that says "I'm stupid and desperate, come steal from me." IF it's something slightly different (we get a pick toward the start of the 3rd rather than at the back end of the 2nd) and if I am eager to make a deal because I want the extra picks (or alternatively, I want to get out of my drafting slot because there is NO ONE I want to pick), then I probably wouldn't sneeze over such a basically trivial difference. But I get the sense you're asking whether I would take a significant loss just to trade down and get more picks, and the answer is "no."

Having looked at the draft charts the value drops in half from pick 2 to pick 10. So even 3 or 4 spots would involve at least a 2nd or a 3rd and more picks depending on which one of those were traded.