How many picks should the 9ers use?

[Hangman]

They have 14 and cant trade the 3 compensatory picks.

I hope they end up using
1 First
2 Seconds (move up from 74)
1 Third
2 Fourth
2 Seventh

and end up with an additional first and third next year (from trading K.C. Second Round Pick and trading the 9ers 4th round pick)

 

[kennyt12]

I'd love to have two first round picks next year but I don't think that's going to happen unless we trade a 2nd round pick. I don't think anyone is going to want a bunch of 3rd and 4th round picks for a 1st.

I guess it could happen in a trade down but then we're not going to get the quality of players we need to improve our defense.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'd love to have two first round picks next year but I don't think that's going to happen unless we trade a 2nd round pick. I don't think anyone is going to want a bunch of 3rd and 4th round picks for a 1st.

I guess it could happen in a trade down but then we're not going to get the quality of players we need to improve our defense.

I think in his scenario we trade the 34th pick this year for a first next year, then package our higher 3rd and a 4th to move back into the second.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

As far as the initial question, I think we end up using eight or nine picks. We have three we have to use, and I think it may be hard to get rid of all our picks even if we wanted to. But there's no doubt we'll be actively moving around on the board, and will likely be trying to trade into next year as well.

 

[4lifer9er]

I think that we will end up using 9 picks, including comps.. I think we will move our original 2nd and a 3rd next year to move into the top 50, Our 5th and 7th for a 4th/6th next year. Move our 2nd(#34) and our original 3rd, 4th next year and get into Minny's 25th pick.. Gives us:

#25-DATONE JONES (Sick, you ready ?!??!!)
#31-Johnathan Banks
#49-Eric Reid
#74-Brandon Williams
4th round comp-Lattimore
5th-BPA(OLB?)
6th-BPA(OL?)
7th comp-BPA
7th comp-BPA

 

[bigninerfan56]

I'm not sure how many picks the 49ers will use, but I don't really like any scenerio where we trade up significantly. This draft is so deep that the seperation from picks mid to late 1st through the 3rd round will be minimal (at least compared to other drafts).

I would consider trading a 2nd rounder for a 1st next year or a 3rd rounder for a 2nd next year though.

 

[deep9er]

its possible we trade down within this draft for another pick? don't think the odds are high, nor would i want to, but its possible?

to the orginal question......prefer we use at least our first three draft picks? trade up any of these if opportunity arises, and don't trade these three down. tend to think don't trade these into 2014 either, we should inject SOME young talent now.

then there will be at least our three comp picks following, for a total of six picks minimum.

 

[numone9er]

I understand this is hypothetical and all, but It just depends who is on the board when we pick and what other teams are willing to offer. I don't think you can really answer this question right now without knowing both of those things.

 

[Bemular]

its possible we trade down within this draft for another pick? don't think the odds are high, nor would i want to, but its possible?

to the orginal question......prefer we use at least our first three draft picks? trade up any of these if opportunity arises, and don't trade these three down. tend to think don't trade these into 2014 either, we should inject SOME young talent now.

Why would you not want to trade down? Would you rather we reach for a player that is now overvalued due to a run at that position or simply does not have the value at the draft slot?

We ALWAYS want to trade back when the value isn't there Deep. That is just good draft strategy.

Oh, and what did you mean in the other thread about "remembering" - Honest question - I'm not trying to incite a war with you Deep, but you made a comment that seems to make no sense and I'm just asking you to make sense of it for me.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

I'll go out on a limb and bet anyone any amount of money we will draft a minimum of three players in this years draft.

 

[justforkicks]

I think that we will end up using 9 picks, including comps.. I think we will move our original 2nd and a 3rd next year to move into the top 50, Our 5th and 7th for a 4th/6th next year. Move our 2nd(#34) and our original 3rd, 4th next year and get into Minny's 25th pick.. Gives us:

#25-DATONE JONES (Sick, you ready ?!??!!)
#31-Johnathan Banks
#49-Eric Reid
#74-Brandon Williams
4th round comp-Lattimore
5th-BPA(OLB?)
6th-BPA(OL?)
7th comp-BPA
7th comp-BPA

Not bad.

I think the niners could keep their picks and probably pick up Jones or Hankins with their #1 and get Banks with KC's #2.

 

[deep9er]

Why would you not want to trade down? Would you rather we reach for a player that is now overvalued due to a run at that position or simply does not have the value at the draft slot?

We ALWAYS want to trade back when the value isn't there Deep. That is just good draft strategy.

Oh, and what did you mean in the other thread about "remembering" - Honest question - I'm not trying to incite a war with you Deep, but you made a comment that seems to make no sense and I'm just asking you to make sense of it for me.

Bem - you always take my opinion at 100% of an extreme, but note i said "prefer" to. this means if there's a deal too good to be true, go ahead and trade back. granted, has to be "too good to be true", not "equal points".

i'll apologize to ALL if my style projects "100% absolute"? i'm not the best writer and i tend to be repeatitive. can't change how i write, but i'll TRY to be less repeatitive.

in the other thread you said if i'm not sure, then ask you. well, i did ask only about 5 posts before??!! FWIW, i've asked you numourous times to clarify.

 

[Bemular]

its possible we trade down within this draft for another pick? don't think the odds are high, nor would i want to, but its possible?

Why would you not want to trade down?

Bem - you always take my opinion at 100% of an extreme, but note i said "prefer" to. this means if there's a deal too good to be true, go ahead and trade back. granted, has to be "too good to be true", not "equal points".

i'll apologize to ALL if my style projects "100% absolute"? i'm not the best writer and i tend to be repeatitive. can't change how i write, but i'll TRY to be less repeatitive.

in the other thread you said if i'm not sure, then ask you. well, i did ask only about 5 posts before??!! FWIW, i've asked you numourous times to clarify.

Deep, as clearly noted in your first post above, with regard to "trading back" you stated: you would not want to - I asked why would you not want to?

I am not seeing where I took your statement out of context.

As for your claim that you asked me to clarify anything numerous times, I addressed everything you posted in the other thread. Again, if you feel otherwise then point out where I haven't addressed your question and I will.

 

[MHSL82]

Imprecise but fun look at 2013 draft capital - NFC West Blog

 

[deep9er]

Deep, as clearly noted in your first post above, with regard to "trading back" you stated: you would not want to - I asked why would you not want to?

I am not seeing where I took your statement out of context.

As for your claim that you asked me to clarify anything numerous times, I addressed everything you posted in the other thread. Again, if you feel otherwise then point out where I haven't addressed your question and I will.

Bem - i explained it just one post above yours. you took my statement as 100%, absolute don't trade back, and i explained why it wasn't. i continued by saying my bad for writing it poorly.

for the 2nd paragraph wait................you're mixing things up again??!! you said i should just ask you as necessary and my reply was yes, i did ask. i asked you a question which started this current 'back and forth'. so my point being i did ask and have been asking, since your day 1.

that reply you're now referring to, DIDN'T say you don't answer questions?


we really need to end this current conversation.

 

[Bemular]

Bem - i explained it just one post above yours. you took my statement as 100%, absolute don't trade back, and i explained why it wasn't. i continued by saying my bad for writing it poorly.

for the 2nd paragraph wait................you're mixing things up again??!! you said i should just ask you as necessary and my reply was yes, i did ask. i asked you a question which started this current 'back and forth'. so my point being i did ask and have been asking, since your day 1.

that reply you're now referring to, DIDN'T say you don't answer questions?


we really need to end this current conversation.

Why, end an opportunity to understand one another - I see no value in that at all. We're not attacking each other and I see no reason to start, but I do see tremendous value in bringing this conversation to a mutually agreed upon understanding.

Now here in this post you are accusing me of "mixing things up again??!!" If this is true then you should have no problem exhibiting this evidence and quite honestly I would like to know from where & how you are getting this impression.

Again, I could not be more honest with this inquisition. You are accusing me of doing something of which I have neither the intent nor the knowledge of doing. So please, take a moment and show me why you are accusing me this action or for that matter anything.

Thanks.

 

[MHSL82]

Imprecise but fun look at 2013 draft capital - NFC West Blog

About that old NFL draft-pick value chart - NFC West Blog