I have a feeling Baalke wants Austin

[imac_21]

if you're opinion is different, no problem. cause you're looking at this season which is human nature. again, it isn't 100% BPA, just far over to that side.

needs change quickly in the NFL, two years ago QB was a huge need, last year RG was a huge need, this year it is D-line, or CB, or WR, or....

so if you keep taking lesser value to fill your immediate needs, that reduced value catches up to you. do you take the #5 rated WR because WR is an immediate need? or do you take the #2 DE?

if you keep taking the most value every year, that value builds up.

What if the #5 WR is better than the #2 DL?

 

[Kendal]

I just get the feeling the Niners are going to try to make a Dexter Carter like pick in Tavon Austin. The team is already super strong, but they want the electric return guy.

I think it would be a mistake, but I have a feeling that's what they're thinking. If they want a ST ace, just sign Leodis McKelvin.

Buffalo Bills reach deal to re-sign Leodis McKelvin, report says - ESPN
not an option anymore

 

[clyde_carbon]

We can definitely do a lot worse than Austin.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

yes, it is never 100% BPA, but for the 1st and 2nd picks (3rd is gray now), it should be much closer to the BPA side.

do want us to trade some into 2014, but hoping it is for 4th, 5th, or 6th's? but ok, hate it to be our 31st but its possible.

It's highly unlikely we'd just do a straight-up trade, our 2013 first for another team's 2014 first. Any trade would likely involve us moving back - possibly quite a distance, but still retaining a relatively high pick. For instance, the Pats traded the 28th pick in 2007 for our 2008 first and our 2007 4th. Like the Pats, we presumably wouldn't make this sort of a trade unless we had reason to believe the team we were trading with was going to be bad next year, or unless we were getting more than just an additional 4th.

I wouldn't mind a trade like that, given our number of picks. Though I might prefer to use some of the later-round picks to generate trade capital for next year. We're in position to keep the cupboard stocked with top-notch talent for several years based on this draft, and I think we need to add a couple playmakers first and foremost. We should have at least three comp picks that we can't trade, and there's only so much depth we can keep on this roster.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

if you're opinion is different, no problem. cause you're looking at this season which is human nature. again, it isn't 100% BPA, just far over to that side.

needs change quickly in the NFL, two years ago QB was a huge need, last year RG was a huge need, this year it is D-line, or CB, or WR, or....

so if you keep taking lesser value to fill your immediate needs, that reduced value catches up to you. do you take the #5 rated WR because WR is an immediate need? or do you take the #2 DE?

if you keep taking the most value every year, that value builds up.

That is actually a good point. To some extent, you trust your eye for talent and your coaches to groom talent, even if it wasn't a player taken early and universally viewed as elite, or at least very good.

That said, when talking about the draft, everything requires context. DL is a need because we stand to lose two of our top four or five players in FA, and our best player is 34 and coming off an injury. If the coaching staff doesn't feel darn good about Ian Williams and Demarcus Dobbs, we have to address NT - pending the fate of Sop and RJF. The age, contract status, and injury history of your players has to be considered.

The only position I would pointedly avoid early in the draft - I'm not counting FB or STs here - is QB because we have a very young player who is extremely promising, and a backup QB will never see the field barring injury. I think everything else is on the table given that we have a lot of good players who will be coming up for new contracts in a few years. So even though we've got young talent, especially on offense in guys like Iupati, A. Davis, Boone, and Crabtree, not to mention Kap, the reality is we are extremely unlikely to keep all those guys. As such, I wouldn't have a huge problem using a high pick on, say, an OT, even though right now it doesn't look like a need.

Now, having said that, there is no such thing as BPA.

 

[Jikkle]

It's highly unlikely we'd just do a straight-up trade, our 2013 first for another team's 2014 first. Any trade would likely involve us moving back - possibly quite a distance, but still retaining a relatively high pick. For instance, the Pats traded the 28th pick in 2007 for our 2008 first and our 2007 4th. Like the Pats, we presumably wouldn't make this sort of a trade unless we had reason to believe the team we were trading with was going to be bad next year, or unless we were getting more than just an additional 4th.

I wouldn't mind a trade like that, given our number of picks. Though I might prefer to use some of the later-round picks to generate trade capital for next year. We're in position to keep the cupboard stocked with top-notch talent for several years based on this draft, and I think we need to add a couple playmakers first and foremost. We should have at least three comp picks that we can't trade, and there's only so much depth we can keep on this roster.

If I'm Baalke I would take a straight up trade for a 1st for a future 1st especially if we're talking about a mediocre team wanting it.

Remember with the Chiefs 2nd round pick trading away our 1st round pick wouldn't be really a loss since we all the more likely would get our man still.

And since we have the 31st pick we're all but assured to get a more valuable 2014 pick out of it.

But I'm confident Baalke can wrangle more than just a 1st rounder out of it.

 

[mem49er]

wouldn't be really a loss since we all the more likely would get our man still.

Without being able to know our board, I'd feel better if we kept the first and traded the 2nd for a future first. There's a lot of teams that examine their board after day one and move up on day 2.

 

[Jikkle]

Without being able to know our board, I'd feel better if we kept the first and traded the 2nd for a future first. There's a lot of teams that examine their board after day one and move up on day 2.

See now you're getting my imagination working :P

Imagine trading our 1st rounder for a 2014 1st round pick and the Chiefs 2nd rounder for another 2014 1st round pick, and trading up from our 2nd rounder to get a player we want.

Could you imagine walking into the 2014 draft with 3 1st rounders and potentially 2 2nd rounders if the Chiefs conditional pick winds up being a 2nd rounder?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

If I'm Baalke I would take a straight up trade for a 1st for a future 1st especially if we're talking about a mediocre team wanting it.

Remember with the Chiefs 2nd round pick trading away our 1st round pick wouldn't be really a loss since we all the more likely would get our man still.

And since we have the 31st pick we're all but assured to get a more valuable 2014 pick out of it.

But I'm confident Baalke can wrangle more than just a 1st rounder out of it.

Except for, you know, not taking a player with the 31st pick and the 34th pick. It's highly unlikely we would have the 31st pick under your scenario, but it's not so unlikely it would be a pick in the 20s. If a team like the Jags, Raiders, etc. comes calling, sure, I'd do the trade. But I'd like to think we could get another 3rd or 4th rounder out of it as well.

 

[mem49er]

See now you're getting my imagination working :P

Imagine trading our 1st rounder for a 2014 1st round pick and the Chiefs 2nd rounder for another 2014 1st round pick, and trading up from our 2nd rounder to get a player we want.

Could you imagine walking into the 2014 draft with 3 1st rounders and potentially 2 2nd rounders if the Chiefs conditional pick winds up being a 2nd rounder?

Ha, I was actually thinking of this and drooling over Clowney. With that much ammo, we'd have a good shot at him.

 

[Jikkle]

Except for, you know, not taking a player with the 31st pick and the 34th pick. It's highly unlikely we would have the 31st pick under your scenario, but it's not so unlikely it would be a pick in the 20s. If a team like the Jags, Raiders, etc. comes calling, sure, I'd do the trade. But I'd like to think we could get another 3rd or 4th rounder out of it as well.

True and I do agree with that we can squeeze some change in a trade for our 1st rounder.

But I think we can all agree that right now our roster is so loaded that we need impact and by trading for a 2014 1st rounder we increase the odds of getting an even greater impact player compared to what we would get at 31.

Sure it's a bit of a dice roll but it's one that odds are stacked that you'll "win" and we only really "lose" if the team we traded it too happens to win the Super Bowl.

It just comes down to how big you win. We can little a little by getting a pick in the 20's or we can win big by getting a pick the teens, win huge by getting pick 5-10, or hit the jackpot by getting a pick 1-5.

 

[Jikkle]

Whelp if Baalke was considering Austin he might be considering him a little more now that Harvin is in Seattle.

Obviously you don't make reactionary moves to what someone else does but with the Seahawks offense becoming more explosive it does put some emphasis on becoming a little more explosive ourselves on offense.

 

[Bemular]

If we have the choice I would take Patterson over Austin as an answer to Seattle getting Harvin.

 

[4lifer9er]

I think we are currently a plenty explosive offense. I think we are going to see a high priority placed on quickly improving our overall talent in the secondary and DL

 

[BINGO]

If we have the choice I would take Patterson over Austin as an answer to Seattle getting Harvin.

Bem,

They're not the answer anymore. At this point it's Revis or nothing for me.

Yes, Patt/Austin would help us out a great deal, but they don't play cornerback.

 

[Bemular]

Bem,

They're not the answer anymore. At this point it's Revis or nothing for me.

Yes, Patt/Austin would help us out a great deal, but they don't play cornerback.

Yeah, I should have clarified as an 'offensive answer' - I wholeheartedly agree we will need a MUCH stronger secondary to compete in the division; not only with Seattle, but if Arizona can get someone who can throw the rock then between Fitz, Floyd & Doucet they could be even more dangerous than Seattle.

 

[Yadahell]

Whelp if Baalke was considering Austin he might be considering him a little more now that Harvin is in Seattle.

Obviously you don't make reactionary moves to what someone else does but with the Seahawks offense becoming more explosive it does put some emphasis on becoming a little more explosive ourselves on offense.

I was just thinking the same thing. If he is still around in the 15-20 range, I would consider a trade up to snag him. He'd be the closest thing to Percy Harvin that the 49ers could acquire.

 

[deep9er]

I think we are currently a plenty explosive offense. I think we are going to see a high priority placed on quickly improving our overall talent in the secondary and DL

yep, we already have enough offense now, even without adding anyone else. we don't have to match Seattle's offense, instead rather we improve defense. we face more good offenses than just Seattle.

hopefully the draft pans out defense for us, cause this is no longer the stout defense of 2011. we need an infusion of defensive talent.

 

[Bemular]

yep, we already have enough offense now, even without adding anyone else. we don't have to match Seattle's offense, instead rather we improve defense. we face more good offenses than just Seattle.

hopefully the draft pans out defense for us, cause this is no longer the stout defense of 2011. we need an infusion of defensive talent.

Hey Man! I just bumped up the other thread for your insights but saw this and became interested in why you would want to draft a QB in the first if "we already have enough offense now, even without adding anyone else."

I mean, if we already have enough offensive talent then why would we waste a DP adding more? I'm sure you can see what draws me to your expertise in the area of draft strategy.

Thanks

 

[mem49er]

yep, we already have enough offense now, even without adding anyone else. we don't have to match Seattle's offense, instead rather we improve defense. we face more good offenses than just Seattle.

hopefully the draft pans out defense for us, cause this is no longer the stout defense of 2011. we need an infusion of defensive talent.

Hey Man! I just bumped up the other thread for your insights but saw this and became interested in why you would want to draft a QB in the first if "we already have enough offense now, even without adding anyone else."

I mean, if we already have enough offensive talent then why would we waste a DP adding more? I'm sure you can see what draws me to your expertise in the area of draft strategy.

Thanks