I'm not opposed to taking a QB in the 2nd this year

[EKmane]

foles drafted in the 3rd.

In case you're wondering, there is no difference between late 2nd and early 3rd is my point.

 

[EKmane]

I'm just wondering with all those picks, why not trade up to get someone Baalke may really like, like he did with Eric Reid this last draft?

Worst case you trade a 1 and a 2 to move up. I want Gilbert or Dennard

 

[yossarian]

What does that have to do with anything? We have a 5 naybe 6 picks in the first 3 rounds.

And what room is there on the team for 5-6 rookies to make the team? People far wiser than me about football say that this is a prime time for Baalke to trade up to get a better player at the positions where maybe they do have holes, like receiver, cornerback, etc.

 

[EKmane]

And what room is there on the team for 5-6 rookies to make the team? People far wiser than me about football say that this is a prime time for Baalke to trade up to get a better player at the positions where maybe they do have holes, like receiver, cornerback, etc.

I think so too. I know there is no room for all those players. I do think they should be turned into two or three good players. Bpa over position is what some wise draft minds told me.

 

[imac_21]

foles drafted in the 3rd.

There isn't a whole lot more annoying than someone who drops individual players drafted to try to prove a point.

Also drafted in the third (since 2002):
Josh McCown
Dave Ragone
Chris Simms
Matt Schaub
Charlie Frye
David Greene
Andrew Walter
Charlie Whitehurst
Brodie Croyle
Trent Edwards
Kevin O'Connell
Colt McCoy
Ryan Mallett
Russell Wilson

So, adding Nick Foles to that list, what would you say the odds of getting a quality starter in the 3rd round is?

And let's expand on this. The earliest our second round pick (Not KC's) will be, is 61st. How many teams currently in the NFL have a starting QB drafted outside the top 60?

How many of those guys QBs are franchise QBs (and no, Nick Foles does not count at this point).

 

[Chamoanlad]

The Niners are in a position to draft the BPA, and also have the luxury of having a ton of picks in the first three rounds (comp picks pending)... On top of that, the Niners are one hit away from having Colt McCoy as the starter... Why wouldn't you consider a strong QB if they were indeed available?

Every team in the NFL is one hit away from their own version of Colt McCoy. I just think spending a 2nd rounder on someone who will only play when catastrophe happens could be better used. If Harbaugh thinks the best QB in the draft has fallen to the end of the 2nd like how he thought Kap was the best then by all means go for it. He's proven he knows QB's. But to use it on a guy you think might be a good backup could be used on other things.

It's not like other positions where if you have an Adrian Peterson and draft a stud RB in the 2nd for BPA. That back could still see playing time as a change of pace or just to give AP a lighter workload. The backup QB will never play except in the preseason or a big time injury.

Plus anyone drafted is going to be a project that needs time to learn our offense, work on mechanics, and work on a bunch of other things so won't be ready for a year or two at a mininmum. With our championship window open NOW I think we are better off getting a vet QB who can step in immediately in an injury and not blow the season. With roster spots at a premium do we really feel comfortable having a rookie as Kap's backup or do we carry 3 QB's and let one of our core special teamers or backups go?

 

[imac_21]

I'm just wondering with all those picks, why not trade up to get someone Baalke may really like, like he did with Eric Reid this last draft?

No one has ruled that out. But why not use one of those picks to get a QB to backup Kaep that we can feel confident in?

 

[Robotech]

A great player can be found anywhere in the draft. Just look at Tom Brady. However, my guess is that the Niners already think that Kaep is their franchise guy.

 

[imac_21]

A great player can be found anywhere in the draft. Just look at Tom Brady. However, my guess is that the Niners already think that Kaep is their franchise guy.

Well, that settles it, we don't have to draft a QB until the 6th round. That's when Brady was drafted. In 2000. How many other QBs have been drafted 6th?

This should help some of you with QBs and drafts.

National Football League: NFL Draft History - by Position

 

[EKmane]

A great player can be found anywhere in the draft. Just look at Tom Brady. However, my guess is that the Niners already think that Kaep is their franchise guy.

It helps to keep up with the conversation vs chimming in

 

[yossarian]

No one has ruled that out. But why not use one of those picks to get a QB to backup Kaep that we can feel confident in?

That's the problem with this whole conversation, yes, in theory, taking a qb in the second round might work out fine, depending on who is available, what our needs are by draft time, what trades are available for Baalke, whether he has to trade up to fill a real need. Once you start putting in all the qualifiers, making a blanket statement either way seems kind of silly.

 

[imac_21]

That's the problem with this whole conversation, yes, in theory, taking a qb in the second round might work out fine, depending on who is available, what our needs are by draft time, what trades are available for Baalke, whether he has to trade up to fill a real need. Once you start putting in all the qualifiers, making a blanket statement either way seems kind of silly.

Huh?

Clyde started by saying he is "not opposed" to a QB in the 2nd. He didn't say he wanted a QB in the 2nd, he didn't say he'd be upset if we didn't take one. He said he's not opposed.

So you (and others) have been throwing out ways in which taking a QB might not be a plausible or a good move. Of course it might not be the right move, depending on how the next few months play out.

But how many of you would be upset if we drafted a QB with the 61st to 64th pick in the draft?

 

[yossarian]

Huh?

Clyde started by saying he is "not opposed" to a QB in the 2nd. He didn't say he wanted a QB in the 2nd, he didn't say he'd be upset if we didn't take one. He said he's not opposed.

So you (and others) have been throwing out ways in which taking a QB might not be a plausible or a good move. Of course it might not be the right move, depending on how the next few months play out.

But how many of you would be upset if we drafted a QB with the 61st to 64th pick in the draft?

I guess my point is that it's not that strong of a statement, I'm not opposed either, depending on the circumstances, probably most people would say they are not opposed under the right circumstances. I think there are circumstances where it would be a good move and plenty where it would be a bad move. It's really hard to judge in a vacuum. So the original post is either worthy of debate because he meant it as a stronger statement, or it's so vague that it's not worth arguing about now.

 

[imac_21]

I guess my point is that it's not that strong of a statement, I'm not opposed either, depending on the circumstances, probably most people would say they are not opposed under the right circumstances. I think there are circumstances where it would be a good move and plenty where it would be a bad move. It's really hard to judge in a vacuum. So the original post is either worthy of debate because he meant it as a stronger statement, or it's so vague that it's not worth arguing about now.

Unfortunately, those that have chosen to argue clyde's point haven't made anything resembling a strong counter. The best anyone has come up with is "you don't know how the draft and offseason will play out," an argument that can easily be used to support clyde's stance of potentially taking a QB in the 2nd round.

 

[-AC-]

Every team in the NFL is one hit away from their own version of Colt McCoy. I just think spending a 2nd rounder on someone who will only play when catastrophe happens could be better used. If Harbaugh thinks the best QB in the draft has fallen to the end of the 2nd like how he thought Kap was the best then by all means go for it. He's proven he knows QB's. But to use it on a guy you think might be a good backup could be used on other things.

It's not like other positions where if you have an Adrian Peterson and draft a stud RB in the 2nd for BPA. That back could still see playing time as a change of pace or just to give AP a lighter workload. The backup QB will never play except in the preseason or a big time injury.

Plus anyone drafted is going to be a project that needs time to learn our offense, work on mechanics, and work on a bunch of other things so won't be ready for a year or two at a mininmum. With our championship window open NOW I think we are better off getting a vet QB who can step in immediately in an injury and not blow the season. With roster spots at a premium do we really feel comfortable having a rookie as Kap's backup or do we carry 3 QB's and let one of our core special teamers or backups go?

And these are valid points and apply to just about every position but QB. QB is so critical that you have to constantly reload the position whether it 'needs' it or not. Teams have to be diligent in keeping the starter position as well as the back-up spot at full strength, because unlike most positions, you can't just plug somebody in and hope they pan out. Consider this, its an investment. If you owned stock in myspace I bet you were riding high for a while. But at the end of the day, I bet you wished you had also invested a little in facebook as well. QB's that show just a fraction of ability will always have value. Even if the Niners never need to use a their back-up there is always the possibility of turning it back into a draft pick ala Matt Cassel or Alex Smith...

 

[yossarian]

Unfortunately, those that have chosen to argue clyde's point haven't made anything resembling a strong counter. The best anyone has come up with is "you don't know how the draft and offseason will play out," an argument that can easily be used to support clyde's stance of potentially taking a QB in the 2nd round.

Well, I agree, it would be better to ask "Under what circumstances in the draft would it actually make sense to take a QB in the second round?" But that would mean discussing who was available, what was available as a trade up, what it would cost, etc. It would be interesting to hear whether people would prefer that we stand pat and maybe pick up a qb in the second round as opposed to trading up to get a receiver or CB and lose that opportunity. My own thought is that I would rather trade up, even if that costs a 2nd round pick, to get a receiver or CB, and even if that means not getting a qb in the 2nd round, but there are too many variables.

 

[imac_21]

Well, I agree, it would be better to ask "Under what circumstances in the draft would it actually make sense to take a QB in the second round?" But that would mean discussing who was available, what was available as a trade up, what it would cost, etc. It would be interesting to hear whether people would prefer that we stand pat and maybe pick up a qb in the second round as opposed to trading up to get a receiver or CB and lose that opportunity. My own thought is that I would rather trade up, even if that costs a 2nd round pick, to get a receiver or CB, and even if that means not getting a qb in the 2nd round, but there are too many variables.

The thing is, those two things do not have to be mutually exclusive. To move from 31 to 18 it cost us the 12th pick of the 3rd round (74th). We currently have an undetermined first round pick, and the 13th pick of the 3rd round (77th) from Tennessee. That would move us up to the late teens/early 20s based off last year's trade. We would still have both our second round picks after this.

 

[MHSL82]

This "first two rounds" thing is really stretching. Our 2nd round pick will be in the 60s, that's a far cry from a top 10 pick.

Anyone have a quick list handy of QBs drafted in the 55-75 range? I'm going to do some research.

And SF has two second rounders, #23 in the second from KC and the last (hopefully) of the second. Plus, a lot of picks scattered throughout the draft.

 

[AngryNiner]

Instead of drafting a QB in the second, I'd rather trade a 5th or so for McCown. That way we have a good option at back up and a mentor for Kaep. Kaep has room to grow and since Alex is gone I think that is an important role that cant be filled by McCoy.

 

[EKmane]

Instead of drafting a QB in the second, I'd rather trade a 5th or so for McCown. That way we have a good option at back up and a mentor for Kaep. Kaep has room to grow and since Alex is gone I think that is an important role that cant be filled by McCoy.

These same coaches waived McCown. They didn't like what he brought two years ago.