Jump to content

Intriguing Mock Draft


Recommended Posts

After reviewing the trade SF isn't giving up enough, the
current proposal is:

2021 #1
2021 #2
2022 #1
2022 #3
Dee Ford

SF would have to give up another #1 in 2023 to pay the "QB
premium" price.  Ford would be a welcomed addition but we
are helping them in terms of their cap

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

They have us trading down with the 49ers: 

  • we get their 1st and 2nd rounders this year, first and third rounders next year and Dee Ford.

I don't know enough about Dee Ford, but generally speaking, we get a nice haul of picks and a vet at a position of need. I'm sure there are others that can speak on him as a player. 

As far as compensation goes, I'm comfortable with that.

I'm also good with Waddle @ 12.

But that's where it starts to get away from me in terms of players:

  • Wyatt Davis over Sam Cosmi
  • Najee Harris over Jaelan Phillips 
  • Quincy Roche over Greg Newsome II
  • Tommy Tremble over Michael Carter or Pete Werner (forgive me, i didn't see his name in there, but I think dude could be a day 1 starter on this D and is likely a mid-late day 2 pick)

I'm an amateur, but part of my beef with these moves is, of course, the players I like vs players I don't - but also positional value: Guard over tackle, RB over edge or corner, situational pass rusher over Corner or 4-3 LB (of which we have none), TE over RB or 4-3 LB.

Granted, all of these could be the right moves and all my pandemic mocking probably means f***-all. But I'm fairly certain on a barren roster, JD and Saleh have got to be thinking about upgrading @ tackle, corner & 3-down edge players and 3-down 4-3 linebackers. 

Anyways, this was pretty nit-picky of me. I like the trade. We'd have 3 first rounders and an extra 3rd rounder next year while also having added a boatload of prospects to this team this year; 4 in the top 50 and 6 in the top 100.

If you look at what teams pay FAs and where they draft prospects, G is more valuable than RT. If the team needs a LT then tackle is more valuable.

But really it depends what they do in FA before the draft. If they add 2 iOL veterans in FA then yes another T makes more sense, particularly if they’ve already cut Fant to avoid guaranteeing half his year’s pay.

I can see RB over edge if Ford is coming here. CB is more valuable than RB generically in a vacuum, but once you’re well outside the top 5-10 overall slots (on top of the team having so many other high picks) I’d be ok with them picking prospect over position there. But again, it depends what they did in FA.

That’s the problem with all mocks this early: they presume there is no FA period and/or teams with $70MM in cap room will sit in their hands and sign nobody. Never mind that it’s also before shakeups from the combine / centralized pro days, such as they’ll be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out Joe Douglas & I got to tell you the Morgan pick last year in the 4th screams that he's NOT going QB at #2 in this draft. Many here have been pining to build a good team 1st & then plant your QB in place. 

While I'm personally not into trading back from #2, I think our pick is up for grabs & I think JD is setting himself up for three  #1 picks in 2022. That gives him ultimate flexibility if we are in the QB market. Sam Darnold gets 1 tryout with this new coaching staff with upgraded Oline & skill guys. 

If you look at mock drafts there are very good players at our need positions all over that 2nd round. Having #23 & #34 and adding another 2 & possibly having 3 third round picks & another #1 next year is exactly how to improve THE TEAM. Miami won 10 games going back & forth with Fitz & Tua for god sakes. That team is average as average gets! 

JD is a TEAM builder. That's how the Ravens roll. As much as I want Sewell, we do need multiple players to get these team out of the cellar next year & compete and build an identity with a good mix of youth & experience. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jetster said:

I'm trying to figure out Joe Douglas & I got to tell you the Morgan pick last year in the 4th screams that he's NOT going QB at #2 in this draft. Many here have been pining to build a good team 1st & then plant your QB in place. 

While I'm personally not into trading back from #2, I think our pick is up for grabs & I think JD is setting himself up for three  #1 picks in 2022. That gives him ultimate flexibility if we are in the QB market. Sam Darnold gets 1 tryout with this new coaching staff with upgraded Oline & skill guys. 

If you look at mock drafts there are very good players at our need positions all over that 2nd round. Having #23 & #34 and adding another 2 & possibly having 3 third round picks & another #1 next year is exactly how to improve THE TEAM. Miami won 10 games going back & forth with Fitz & Tua for god sakes. That team is average as average gets! 

JD is a TEAM builder. That's how the Ravens roll. As much as I want Sewell, we do need multiple players to get these team out of the cellar next year & compete and build an identity with a good mix of youth & experience. 

I do think the bold is very true.  Not only did the Ravens take their last 2 successful QBs with picks in the second half of the first round and won with a strong defense, but he also saw how quickly things can fall apart when you mortgage the future for a QB, when you look at Phila

That being said.  

I keep coming back to the fact that trading for Watson or taking a QB at 2 is NOT mortgaging our future. JD has acquired two extra first round picks and an extra 3rd.  So essentially he can trade 2, a 2021 3rd and a 2022 first and still have a "full complement of draft picks" to build the TEAM.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Greenseed4 said:

And yet Joe Douglas, needing a WR, was willing to drop 11 spots in the 2nd last year  just to recoup a 3rd.  

It depends on who we are targeting and what comparable value is for say the OT at #2 vs. the OL at #12 (plus 4 impact players).  Or the QB/WR at #2 vs. the QB/WR/TE at #12 (plus 4 impact players).


 

There is no comparison between dropping 11 spots in the 2nd round to dropping from 2nd overall to 6th or 10th.

Every spot you drop in the first is worth a fortune. Dropping in later rounds is worth peanuts.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

No way we can go into next season with Sam as the starting QB.. I don’t care how good the trade package is for the 2nd pick 

Sticking with Sam necessitates bringing in a legitimate 2nd option. Placing a bet on Sam is one thing, going all-in another.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two starting O linemen, #1 wr and rb, a TE and additional edge? I'd say that would be a nice way to start the draft. Plus another #1 for next year, giving us 3 if we need to move . And getting Dee Ford to boot. Maybe ask for Bosa, and tell them they can keep next years#1.😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

There is no comparison between dropping 11 spots in the 2nd round to dropping from 2nd overall to 6th or 10th.

Every spot you drop in the first is worth a fortune. Dropping in later rounds is worth peanuts.

I didn’t really understand why you were comparing the Macaggnan trade in 2018 to a hypothetical  Douglass one in 2021 either, but I can assure you I understand how the trade value chart works.

You using a trade where we clearly overcompensated to move up to #3, as a benchmark for trade value doesn’t mean dropping to #12 isn’t worth what has been proposed in the OP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greenseed4 said:

I didn’t really understand why you were comparing the Macaggnan trade in 2018 to a hypothetical  Douglass one in 2021 either, but I can assure you I understand how the trade value chart works.

You using a trade where we clearly overcompensated to move up to #3, as a benchmark for trade value doesn’t mean dropping to #12 isn’t worth what has been proposed in the OP. 

You are still missing the point if you think the "Trade chart" is the standard for trades that involve the #2 pick and possible franchise QBs/LTs. When the 2nd best player in the draft is a safety, you get 1 type of trade up but in a year like this with Fields/Wilson/Sewell available the cost to move up to 2 will be steep. 

So yeah,, we "overcompensated" to move up to 3, just like a team will have to "overcompensate" to move from 12 to 2 this year or from 12 to 3. 

Trades involving moves in the middle of the 2nd/3rd/4th rounds are the ones that routinely go by the trade chart. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If you look at what teams pay FAs and where they draft prospects, G is more valuable than RT. If the team needs a LT then tackle is more valuable.

But really it depends what they do in FA before the draft. If they add 2 iOL veterans in FA then yes another T makes more sense, particularly if they’ve already cut Fant to avoid guaranteeing half his year’s pay.

I can see RB over edge if Ford is coming here. CB is more valuable than RB generically in a vacuum, but once you’re well outside the top 5-10 overall slots (on top of the team having so many other high picks) I’d be ok with them picking prospect over position there. But again, it depends what they did in FA.

That’s the problem with all mocks this early: they presume there is no FA period and/or teams with $70MM in cap room will sit in their hands and sign nobody. Never mind that it’s also before shakeups from the combine / centralized pro days, such as they’ll be.

This is a genuine question - is that true of the Shanahan offense?

Seems to me they're budget at guard but select/pay tackles at a premium. Staley + McGlinchey, Jedrick Wills & Jack Conklin, even the more budget (relatively speaking) Brian O'Neil & Riley Reiff compared to the rest of that offensive line. I just watched a good chunk of that video someone posted of Benton explaining the Wide Zone and how important the tackles seem to be for that system. 

But I agree with the broader point - that until free agency/athletic testing of prospects happens, we won't have a clear picture of viable options. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

This is a genuine question - is that true of the Shanahan offense?

Seems to me they make due at guard but select/pay tackles at a premium. Staley + McGlinchey, Jedrick Wills & Jack Conklin, even the more budget (relatively speaking) Brian O'Neil & Riley Reiff compared to the rest of that offensive line. I just watched a good chunk of that video someone posted of Benton explaining the Wide Zone and how important the tackles seem to be for that system. 

But I agree with the broader point - that until free agency/athletic testing of prospects happens, we won't have a clear picture of viable options. 

It could just be the way things played out due to the personnel they had. Doesn't mean it's part of a general rule/philosophy. 

I wasn't seeking to write this much, but just typed it out as I was looking it up since I don't exactly have Shanahan Jr's past decade of history committed to memory and wasn't going to. Read it or not, but it's here for reference.

***

2010-2013: Was it the Shanahan philosophy to throw all those high picks at hoping RGIII becomes a perennial star pro, and then amazingly double-dip on Cousins in round 4 of the same draft? They took Trent Williams, but he was a premiere prospect and nobody takes an iOL prospect at #4. There wasn't an iOL off the board in the first half of that round, as usual. Mike S picked up Jammal Brown for a conditional future 3rd rounder, so not a major investment for a 2nd tackle. Brought in a decently-priced former 2nd round G as a FA (Chester) in 2011. In y2 in the draft they went D/D in rounds 1-2, y3 went RG3/OG, y4 just D early. then the Shanahans were dumped.

***

2014: Cleveland took Bitonio with their high 2nd round pick (#35) after Shanahan arrived as OC. That's not a nothing investment indicative of a guards-aren't-important OC. They already had Joe Thomas for several years, and used a 2nd on Mitch Schwartz in round 2 (still had him on his rookie contract in '14), so if he only cared about his tackles they'd have already been set. They also went with a new QB upon his arrival in Manziel. But he was just the OC, not the HC let alone GM (both of those guys - Pettine & Farmer - were fired in short order, too).

***

2015-2016: Atlanta went defense with both their 1st and 2nd round picks in both seasons he was down there. Doubt that's how he wanted it even though that's how it went. Anyway their offense was already good, except for RT where they went with Schraeder who was an UDFA nobody entering his 2nd season. Their 3 iOLmen were veteran 1st & 2nd rounders, including probowler Mack After that he got his promotion to HC in SF.

***

2017-present: When he came aboard at SF, the 49ers gave up a high 2nd rounder in 2017 for Garoppolo, on the guess that he was good because BB allegedly wanted to move on from the Brady era to the younger guy, but lost out to Kraft on the decision. Is there a philosophy of bringing in a new QB, or just viewed as a better QB or better fit? He's still not the GM, but probably gets what he wants more than when he was just the OC. On the OL:

  • They opted for a quick iOL fix in picking up Richburg when he was available, and didn't get him for free. (Macc opted for Spencer Long instead. Joy.)
  • They also picked up Tomlinson - a recent, former 1st round guard - when he was available for a 5th. It worked out, and they were able to extend him with a low $5MM/yr pricetag - and low skill guarantees - after declining his $10MM 5th yr option. After that his play warranted keeping him, so there wasn't a reason to draft someone else high or sign a more expensive guard in his place just to do it.
  • They took a LT prospect when Staley was aging, a year before he retired, which is good planning.
  • Then T.Williams because he was available, and frankly they had a need at tackle.
  • They signed Mike Person cheap, but that was in May, suggesting they may have been looking at the position in the draft and signed Person when the draft didn't fall that way. Don't know which guards they were targeting, but it probably wasn't nobody.

He/they didn't seem to be content heading into the season with the QB that led the team to a dog***t record the prior season in every stop except Atlanta where he inherited Matt Ryan who was going nowhere. I don't know if that's a personnel philosophy to clean house at QB, that will extend to his disciples, or just a scheme philosophy. Or neither, and it's just not enough times to call it a pattern that'll surely repeat, but rather a function of opportunity.

Whichever it is, hopefully it's not also a philosophy to draft a punter in round 4 lol.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would seem to me a team to work out a deal with is New Orleans.  Cap hell, no QB (unless they're going to roll with Winston or Hill) and some good chips to offer (Lattimore/Ramcyzk?)  Wish they weren't picking #28...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, choon328 said:

Yes, yes it would

If that is what you would offer, I am glad JD is in charge.

He is NOT worth 4 first round picks.  Like, not even close. 

Brady in his prime would have been worth that....maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KRL said:

After reviewing the trade SF isn't giving up enough, the
current proposal is:

2021 #1
2021 #2
2022 #1
2022 #3
Dee Ford

SF would have to give up another #1 in 2023 to pay the "QB
premium" price.  Ford would be a welcomed addition but we
are helping them in terms of their cap

If you guys think this is the haul for #2 and you give that up plus two more #1 round picks for watson... damn thats like 5 1st rounders...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2021 at 9:32 PM, choon328 said:

Considering that the Redskins gave up the 6th overall pick in 2012,  2nd rd pick that same year, 2013 first round pick,  2014 first round pick to move up 4 spots that year the offer from SF is not nearly enough. And Dee Ford missed the entire year with an injury, is 29, and still has 3 years left on his deal and has a cap hit of $20 million per year. 

Ford's cap hit for the Jets (or any other team that trades for him) would only be 15.5-16.5M/year for the remaining three years of his deal.

People need to understand how the cap works when you trade for players. You take on the cap charge for their salary and any bonuses you will have to pay. You do not have a cap charge for the prorated portion of the signing bonus. That stays with the team that originally signed him, and accelerates into the cap year of the trade, as dead money.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...