Jump to content

Who are the 49er's going to take at 3


wagne591
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

So much of this comes down to who teams think has the best ability to guide a complex offense (relative to college offenses) against far more complex defenses than their college counterparts. Recall that RG III was an elite talent who in a Shanahan offense put up a great rookie season before immediately crashing and burning. I'm not saying Fields is that guy at all, but Jones is far more in the vein of the guys Shanahan has coached afterward: Cousins, Ryan, JG. None of them have cannon arms and none of them are mobile, but they have good-enough arms and are all good at running NFL offenses. Shanahan should have won a SB in Atlanta (his coaching cost them an easy win, not Ryan, who had a great game), and he had the Niners in position to beat KC but they lost it late on that overthrow by JG. Neither of those games showed that you can't win with those players given their coin-flip outcomes. I guess my bottom line is that I don't think Shanahan is totally safe (and nor should he be), and people in danger seek security. Jones may represent the most secure option to him given the nature of his game. I don't give a rat's ass if he's not deemed worthy of going #3. If you believe that a particularly QB is the guy you want, then damn the torpedoes and go get him. And if you turn out to be correct about him, all the draftniks can go pound sand.   

 

I don't buy Jones as the most secure option. I agree if Kyle loves Mac Jones he should draft him and I agree he is like guys Kyle has coached before. Schaub, Cousins, Ryan, Jimmy G. I just do not think that is what they are thinking. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't buy Jones as the most secure option. I agree if Kyle loves Mac Jones he should draft him and I agree he is like guys Kyle has coached before. Schaub, Cousins, Ryan, Jimmy G. I just do not think that is what they are thinking. 

We'll know soon enough. I will confess to avoiding even considering Lance as an option because of his limited play and missing all of the past season. He may be the best out of all of them -- I have no idea -- but I personally would steer very clear of taking him that early given what the Niners need from that player THIS year. I don't think it's a possibility.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Costing more and being more valuable are two completely different things.  You said that the niners wouldn’t pay Kittle because he wasn’t worth it to their offense.....yet it’s worthwhile to spend 3 1st rd picks and a 3rd on another TE after paying a TE 15M a year.  Truly makes no sense

 

You moved the decimal point a bit too far.  jimmy G had a 28M dead cap hit last season. 2.8M this season.  
 

You think they should take Pitts, after trading their 1st rd picks for the next 2 seasons.....meanwhile Jimmy G is their QB. The same QB that hasn’t been able to finish 2 of the last 3 years and we saw what happened to them without their starting QB.  Now.....they have 2 great TEs, Deebo and Aiyuk + a QB that will most likely get hurt and miss the playoffs.  Makes a lot of sense.....for a GM that is hoping to get fired. At this point the new GM will have no ammo to acquire a qb that has the ability every GM is looking for in a QB.  Availability.  Or they can draft a qb now, when they’re in position to draft one that they likely have already identified and traded up for. 
 

I don’t know if any of these QBs will pan out, no one does.  I do know that a QB is WAY more valuable than a TE when building a championship team.  Shanahan has wasted 2 full season because jimmy g couldn’t stay on the field.  He’d be a fool to trade 3 1st and a 3rd and put all of his eggs in the jimmy g basket.  
 

you haven’t yet commented on Jimmy Gs lack of availability.  Do you have an opinion on it?  Do you think his injuries are just dumb luck and that he’ll be healthy going forward?

 


 

 

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

We'll know soon enough. I will confess to avoiding even considering Lance as an option because of his limited play and missing all of the past season. He may be the best out of all of them -- I have no idea -- but I personally would steer very clear of taking him that early given what the Niners need from that player THIS year. I don't think it's a possibility.  

I know Lance only played one game this year, but FWIW, Lance has started 16 games in college while Mac started 17. Mac's played more recently but he isn't much more experienced.

Edited by DCOrange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

We'll know soon enough. I will confess to avoiding even considering Lance as an option because of his limited play and missing all of the past season. He may be the best out of all of them -- I have no idea -- but I personally would steer very clear of taking him that early given what the Niners need from that player THIS year. I don't think it's a possibility.  

 

 

He played one game this past season and he was a dud.

1 minute ago, DCOrange said:

I know Lance only played one game this year, but FWIW, Lance has started 16 games in college while Mac started 17. Mac's played more recently but he isn't much more experienced.

 

 

Mac played against guys he will see across from him on the field in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

I know Lance only played one game this year, but FWIW, Lance has started 16 games in college while Mac started 17. Mac's played more recently but he isn't much more experienced.

I know, but Alabama is the pros. You worry about only 16 games started at the 1 AA level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dave mcbride said:

I know, but Alabama is the pros. You worry about only 16 games started at the 1 AA level.

That's fair enough. Mac was certainly playing against a higher level of competition, though his supporting cast relative to the competition was pretty ridiculous. At the end of the day, I think Lance's accuracy is a much bigger issue than his experience; he's further along mentally than most of the guys in this class.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

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.

You can’t just assume that these QBs are already busts. That’s what you are doing.  
 

Not much else to discuss when one person is talking about what he sees in an i against crystal ball 

 

regarding the Jets, you’re, again assuming, that the Jets didn’t make the trade with the niners because they think fields, Jones and Lance stink. When there’s a very good chance that they didn’t pull the trigger because they just love Zach Wilson.  If you need a QB and you identify a QB that you love, you don’t trade away the chance to draft him. 


also, the niners traded with miami, a team that isn’t looking to draft a qB.  SF sitting at 12.  The Jets would have taken themselves out of position to draft the top 5 QBs, let alone the 3rd best Qb.  Your assumptions are so far off base and you’re not covering your bases my man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

That's fair enough. Mac was certainly playing against a higher level of competition, though his supporting cast relative to the competition was pretty ridiculous. At the end of the day, I think Lance's accuracy is a much bigger issue than his experience; he's further along mentally than most of the guys in this class.

Lance’s supporting cast was every bit as dominant at the 1AA level as Jones’s was in Div 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't buy Jones as the most secure option. I agree if Kyle loves Mac Jones he should draft him and I agree he is like guys Kyle has coached before. Schaub, Cousins, Ryan, Jimmy G. I just do not think that is what they are thinking. 

I don’t think any of these QBs will actually factor into this season unless Jimmy gets injured. I think Kyle is drafting his Qb of the future, not his Qb of the present. If I’m not mistaken, he’s actually said as much. He’s a pretty straight shooter.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see anything through all of the smoke - but I'd have to guess Fields.  It just seems weird that he'd drop from being "maybe better than Lawrence" to 4th QB in the draft (or 5th).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Mac's ceiling is Kirk Cousins to me. Now Kyle likes Kirk Cousins.... I just don't think he "trade up to #3 in the draft" likes him. 

The Vikes would have taken a lot less than 3 firsts for Cousins if shanny wanted to ensure he got the ceiling of Jones ...and just trade for Captain Kirk. 

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't buy Jones as the most secure option. I agree if Kyle loves Mac Jones he should draft him and I agree he is like guys Kyle has coached before. Schaub, Cousins, Ryan, Jimmy G. I just do not think that is what they are thinking. 

Kyle also coached RGIII, Mac Jones was considered a borderline 1st Rounder and now a top 3 guy? I don't buy it. Fields to me has best track record and talent IMHO.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

You can’t just assume that these QBs are already busts. That’s what you are doing.  
 

Not much else to discuss when one person is talking about what he sees in an i against crystal ball 

 

regarding the Jets, you’re, again assuming, that the Jets didn’t make the trade with the niners because they think fields, Jones and Lance stink. When there’s a very good chance that they didn’t pull the trigger because they just love Zach Wilson.  If you need a QB and you identify a QB that you love, you don’t trade away the chance to draft him. 


also, the niners traded with miami, a team that isn’t looking to draft a qB.  SF sitting at 12.  The Jets would have taken themselves out of position to draft the top 5 QBs, let alone the 3rd best Qb.  Your assumptions are so far off base and you’re not covering your bases my man.  

 

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

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.

 

 

You have no idea how they view the 4 QB prospects that will be left. There is certainly a chance that they view him “the guy they want” above the other guys.  I’ve heard several analysts say they feel the same way. I feel that way. Sure, there’s no guarantee that he turns out to be great.  There’s no guarantee anyone will be great and using that as evidence is nonsense. That’s a given when talking about “prospects”.  Every prospect.  
 

In your argument, you actually did say they were busts.  You may have not meant that to be you argument, but your example is in bold.  Yes, the ROI% says that Pitts is the safer pick if you have Pitts as the higher rated player.  But than you have to weigh the positional value of the players compared to gauge whether or not the player is worth trading up for.  Using 3 1st rd picks and a 3rd on a TE isn’t a good allocation of resources.  Especially when you are already paying a TE 15M a year.  Than you said you can just trade Kittle and get the first rd picks back. Sure, and they can deal with a 29M dead cap this year and 24M next year.  Great allocation of resources.  
 

I’m done here.  👊🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

They are definitely taking a QB and have been very forthright with that plan. They aren’t hiding anything except which QB it will be. They are doing a ton of work on all of the top QBs. Also, you don’t invest 3 first round picks on any other position. 

They don’t need to say anything  , we all know nobody in their right mind would give  up 3 1st round picks and a 3rd for anything else but QB , 

I think it has to be Fields , Mac Jones will probably end up in New England ....

Edited by Putin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Putin said:

They don’t need to say anything  , we all know nobody in their right mind would give  up 3 1st round picks and a 3rd for anything else but QB , 

I think it has to be Fields , Mac Jones will probably and up in New England ....

We all don’t know that @Mr. WEO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

You have no idea how they view the 4 QB prospects that will be left. There is certainly a chance that they view him “the guy they want” above the other guys.  I’ve heard several analysts say they feel the same way. I feel that way. Sure, there’s no guarantee that he turns out to be great.  There’s no guarantee anyone will be great and using that as evidence is nonsense. That’s a given when talking about “prospects”.  Every prospect.  
 

In your argument, you actually did say they were busts.  You may have not meant that to be you argument, but your example is in bold.  Yes, the ROI% says that Pitts is the safer pick if you have Pitts as the higher rated player.  But than you have to weigh the positional value of the players compared to gauge whether or not the player is worth trading up for.  Using 3 1st rd picks and a 3rd on a TE isn’t a good allocation of resources.  Especially when you are already paying a TE 15M a year.  Than you said you can just trade Kittle and get the first rd picks back. Sure, and they can deal with a 29M dead cap this year and 24M next year.  Great allocation of resources.  
 

I’m done here.  👊🏻

 

 

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.   

Link to comment
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...