Jimmie Ward pick reviews from media

[clyde_carbon]

Not so much, it could just be a physical weakness. For example, I was a college athlete that had been lifting 4x per week minimum since I was 15 until 22. I couldn't bench for shit. I beasted squats and other weight work, but I couldn't bench to save my life.

Generally speaking. You can tell by the body type if a player SHOULD be able to put up at least a certain amount of reps, especially in a top-notch college training program.

If you're a DT weighing over 300 and barely putting up 18, it's most likely because you didn't spend enough time in the gym.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

we use different packages like all teams, but you're not convincing me we substitute regularly. that is what you're implying, we substitute on a regular basis. you're not convincing me all players are part-time players, that is what you're saying.....there are no 'starters' because everyone is part-time.

we all know how Fangio substitutes, he doesn't......unless he has to.

This post was a bit more in depth, but my browser crashed and I lost most of it.

If I may be so bold as to interpret Imac's statements - at least what I think he's saying. We don't rotate much. At all. But we're set at most of the positions that don't rotate. Realistically, there were a finite number of open, full-time starting positions on this team. We could have arguably added a CB who would have started over Cully or Brock. We also could have added (and likely did) a center who could challenge Kilgore. Beyond that, there are no full-time starting positions that are open. In fact, outside of the aforementioned positions, fourteen of our remaining nineteen starters have been named to an all-pro team, to the pro bowl, or as a pro bowl alternate. The other five guys? Kaepernick, McDonald, Dorsey, Miller, and Crabtree. The last four guys on that list have all had very strong seasons in the recent past that at least merited pro bowl consideration.

So Deep, if picking a guy who will likely play 60% of snaps as a rookie and could end up starting at one of the safety spots in 2-3 years is no good, what should we have done? None of your vague generalities about a guy who could have started. What player should we have taken, and what position would he have started at this year? And why would that have been a better pick than Ward?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

On the flipside only being 7 spots away might've been the reason they didn't aggressively trade up to get him.

They likely looked at the teams ahead of them and liked their chances of him falling to them or being able to trade up a little higher in the 2nd round to grab him.

Yeah, obviously we were all surprised the Niners picked Ward. Obviously the Hawks weren't going to take him. Denver added the arguably the best safety to his the open market this offseason. And the other teams at the top of the draft appeared to have bigger needs. It's entirely possible Atlanta expected Ward to be there for them.

 

[deep9er]

This post was a bit more in depth, but my browser crashed and I lost most of it.

If I may be so bold as to interpret Imac's statements - at least what I think he's saying. We don't rotate much. At all. But we're set at most of the positions that don't rotate. Realistically, there were a finite number of open, full-time starting positions on this team. We could have arguably added a CB who would have started over Cully or Brock. We also could have added (and likely did) a center who could challenge Kilgore. Beyond that, there are no full-time starting positions that are open. In fact, outside of the aforementioned positions, fourteen of our remaining nineteen starters have been named to an all-pro team, to the pro bowl, or as a pro bowl alternate. The other five guys? Kaepernick, McDonald, Dorsey, Miller, and Crabtree. The last four guys on that list have all had very strong seasons in the recent past that at least merited pro bowl consideration.

So Deep, if picking a guy who will likely play 60% of snaps as a rookie and could end up starting at one of the safety spots in 2-3 years is no good, what should we have done? None of your vague generalities about a guy who could have started. What player should we have taken, and what position would he have started at this year? And why would that have been a better pick than Ward?

a 1st round pick should go to a prospect you project a starter. if this is too vague for you, what can I say?

if Baalke projects Ward to be a starter next year and beyond, then he should say it, not say he's our "60% of the time" player. if you're ok using a 1st round pick on 60% of the time, then that's you. so next year, will you be ok drafting a 3rd WR in round 1, for 60% of the time?

all of your paragraph 1 is about 'here and now', and isn't the way to view a 1st round pick.

and please, don't go expanding this into "I don't like this entire draft class.....", or making a big deal out of it. the Ward pick made me think a little, but I'm not ranting.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

a 1st round pick should go to a prospect you project a starter. if this is too vague for you, what can I say?

if Baalke projects Ward to be a starter next year and beyond, then he should say it, not say he's our "60% of the time" player. if you're ok using a 1st round pick on 60% of the time, then that's you. so next year, will you be ok drafting a 3rd WR in round 1, for 60% of the time?

all of your paragraph 1 is about 'here and now', and isn't the way to view a 1st round pick.

and please, don't go expanding this into "I don't like this entire draft class.....", or making a big deal out of it. the Ward pick made me think a little, but I'm not ranting.

Why are you assuming he's never projected to start? Here's what Baalke said about their expectations for Ward:

He’s going to come in we’re going to expect him to learn the nickel position. We’re going to expect him to learn the safety position and how he fits into the scheme, that’s going to be up to the coaches and what they feel is going to ultimately be his best fit. But we’re very confident in his ability to cover, work inside and also play the safety positions, both strong and weak.

Then, when asked pointedly about the evolution of the nickel CB position, he said:

Well, if you just look at last year statistically, the last two years, our nickel’s been on field over 60 percent of the time. So, that’s a starter in our opinion. That’s a guy that’s going to get a lot of play time. And he’s going to get an opportunity to compete for that spot.

He did not say anything about Ward being limited to that role. If you want to read that in, feel free. But that's your spin on what he said, it's not what he said. To me, Baalke's comments suggest that Ward will start out as the nickel CB, but will gain experience at and back up several DB positions. I think it is entirely possible that he ends up starting at one of the safety spots in the future. Though to answer your question, yes, I would be okay with using the 30th overall pick on a player who only plays 60% of snaps, but does so at a very high level. I'd even be okay with adding a NT at that spot who plays less than 40% of snaps, if he's going to do it well.

So I guess I'd ask you why you think he's never slated to start. And if you agree that he could be a starter at some point, what player/position should we have drafted who would start 100% of the snaps this year and in the future?

 

[deep9er]

Why are you assuming he's never projected to start? Here's what Baalke said about their expectations for Ward:

He’s going to come in we’re going to expect him to learn the nickel position. We’re going to expect him to learn the safety position and how he fits into the scheme, that’s going to be up to the coaches and what they feel is going to ultimately be his best fit. But we’re very confident in his ability to cover, work inside and also play the safety positions, both strong and weak.

Then, when asked pointedly about the evolution of the nickel CB position, he said:

Well, if you just look at last year statistically, the last two years, our nickel’s been on field over 60 percent of the time. So, that’s a starter in our opinion. That’s a guy that’s going to get a lot of play time. And he’s going to get an opportunity to compete for that spot.

He did not say anything about Ward being limited to that role. If you want to read that in, feel free. But that's your spin on what he said, it's not what he said. To me, Baalke's comments suggest that Ward will start out as the nickel CB, but will gain experience at and back up several DB positions. I think it is entirely possible that he ends up starting at one of the safety spots in the future. Though to answer your question, yes, I would be okay with using the 30th overall pick on a player who only plays 60% of snaps, but does so at a very high level. I'd even be okay with adding a NT at that spot who plays less than 40% of snaps, if he's going to do it well.

So I guess I'd ask you why you think he's never slated to start. And if you agree that he could be a starter at some point, what player/position should we have drafted who would start 100% of the snaps this year and in the future?

my initial post was about why Baalke didn't come out and say he'll start, he didn't have to say game 1? IMO 1st round picks are projected starters and Baalke should say it, and say where?

and where did I say Ward will never start?

again, not shaking my head, pissed off, or ranting, but it did cross my mind we spent a 1st rounder on a part-time player. we should always be seeking starters round 1, else how do you keep up?

you're ok using our 1st round picks on an NT for 33%, a 3rd WR for 25%, a second TE for 40%..........but that's you. and don't look at the roster now, you don't use a 1st rounder based on this year.

btw - does the above say Ward will start or does it say he'll be the NB first and foremost? does 'learn the safety spots' (above) say he'll be a starting Safety, or are you embellishing it? so in this case, neither of us should project ahead.

 

[imac_21]

my initial post was about why Baalke didn't come out and say he'll start, he didn't have to say game 1? IMO 1st round picks are projected starters and Baalke should say it, and say where?

Are you seriously wondering why Baalke wasn't upfront and forthright with the media? You might as well question if Harbaugh will want to establish the run next year.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

my initial post was about why Baalke didn't come out and say he'll start, he didn't have to say game 1? IMO 1st round picks are projected starters and Baalke should say it, and say where?

and where did I say Ward will never start?

again, not shaking my head, pissed off, or ranting, but it did cross my mind we spent a 1st rounder on a part-time player. we should always be seeking starters round 1, else how do you keep up?

you're ok using our 1st round picks on an NT for 33%, a 3rd WR for 25%, a second TE for 40%..........but that's you. and don't look at the roster now, you don't use a 1st rounder based on this year.

btw - does the above say Ward will start or does it say he'll be the NB first and foremost? does 'learn the safety spots' (above) say he'll be a starting Safety, or are you embellishing it? so in this case, neither of us should project ahead.

I'm having a little trouble reconciling those statements, Deep. When you say "we spent a 1st rounder on a part-time player," you are saying that Ward will never start.

I never said I'd be happy with a 3rd WR who plays 25% of snaps (frankly, I think our 3rd WR should play more than that anyway), but I would be okay with drafting a 3rd receiver who wasn't going to play much this year, but projected to start in the future. That's what would have happened if we drafted a WR in the first this year.