Mr. WEO

I saw him lifting the cushions on the sofa of the WR room...

Good luck with that. The RB Committee produces little from their meetings. Probably not the scheme that did them in...

link?

And a de-lousing upon return.

Defense is solid. The Offense really isn't--they lack playmakers. Adding Wentz (over even Rivers) didn't make them better.

lol the draft wisdom of Gil Brandt: "he's an excellent player who will help whoever drafts him win a lot of games"

Do people still buy the Madden disc (with its "cover") and put it into their computer to play?

Either way, it's going to be CB

If Fromm can't beat out a guy who has never taken a pro snap in a 5 year NFL career then just cut him.

Ridiculous? Defense is pretty good (10th in points). On Offense, They have have 1 RB over 400 yards last year. 1 receiver of any kind over 700 (the aging TY Hilton). Only 3 had 500 or more. Their QB is now Wentz.

Drew Lock would also be a quality backup, yes.

No actually I didn't---this is still a fabrication, no matter how many times you repeat it as fact. I listed their bust potential--in very easy terms for you. If you have to make up stuff to square your rebuttal then, yeah, you need to fold.

The Rams hype is reached insanity. I don't see them beating the Packers. McVay's mystique dissipated 3 years ago.

Jets think they "stink"? I didn't say that. They don't want any of them--and Wilson is absolutely no more of a sure thing than any of them are. I also didn't assume they were busts already. Again, if you are going with the odds for ROI (cost vs bust potential/impact) Pitts is the easy choice. I am fresh out of ways too give you the same answer worded in a way that you can stop asking me. As for the Jets, if they wanted any other of those guys other than Wilson, they could have easily signaled this by offering their spot at number 2. They could have had, say Fields, plus picks. The Niners would be looking at Fields after surrendering and chance to start over at QB (see AZ Cardinals) until 2024.

merge...

He played one game this past season and he was a dud. Mac played against guys he will see across from him on the field in the NFL.

The question I'm answering is whether the 49ers would be better of investing top picks in as sure a thing as there is in this draft for an immediate playmaker, or blow all that capital on a total roll of the dice QB (take your pick: another OSU dud, another Bama dud, or the kid who played a season in the mountains 2 years ago). I think my answer makes a lot more sense than yours. Lack of availability is not good for your franchise QB. Goes without saying. I haven't seen anything that says JG isn't ready to go. Let's say he's not---so they roll with Fields and his 22 college starts for all that capitol? In a year or 2 he busts out and they are looking to replace him with no 1st and nothing to trade to move up? I guess that's one way to do it. There's a reason the Jets wouldn't trade with the 49ers---they don't want to take any of those 3 guys....even with draft picks thrown in.

It costs more, yes. Rookie contracts are free. If a 1st rounder busts out (sign odds), few dollars lost. Better luck next time. If Pitts is a superstar, they can trade Kittles and get those other 2 1st rounders back, easily. Which QB is it I think they should go with? Oh, you mean JG? He's the only starter they have--and he's a 28 million dead cap hit this year, so he's not going anywhere.

I didn't think he would get 15 million, that TE wasn't worth top WR money. They can add Pitts for pennies (3 rookie contracts cost 3 pennies over 4 years each, not $75 million over 5 years)--and the bust rate for marginal QB prospects is high, so the economics clearly say he's worth it of he is as good as Kittles. That's easy. So go ahead, why is it foolish for them to trade up for Pitts instead of the one hit wonder from NDS or another future Bama bust at QB?

Surprisingly, many here are struggling with this.

Already?? In 4 starts he had more 300+ yard games than Wentz had all year and led to them to their only win after week 8 bye. For the Eagles, that's a quality backup.

I was responding to another poster that mentioned him.

No need to twist words. That team needs playmakers. Kittle and Pitts would be unstoppable. Why do you think it's wiser to spend 3 1st rounders and a 3rd for kid who played one season of small school college ball (2 years ago!) instead of an NFL ready stud ball catcher/playmaker? Just curious.

The Bears will tell you (now) that you don't trade up to get a kid with one full year starting for your QB. Frame it another way: which player has the best chance to make an immediate and lasting impact on the 49ers Offense? Hands down it's Pitts. Jimmy G isn't the best, but he isn't awful either. Lance wouldn't be competent to take over Shanahan's Offense for years, maybe. That's worse than a Daniel Jones pick/move.

Wentz, in only his 5th season (only 2 full seasons), was "in his prime"? Maybe you are re-defining that word? You won't have to wait--you already have "an example": Brady. The year they drafted JG, NE won a SB. Brady had 4100 yards and 34 TDs. The following year, 4600 yards and 36 TDs. They then appeared in 3 SB in a row and won 2 of them. Top 5 in points scored the entire time.